Final result US 4 Aussi 0 Shut out for Mullinix. Goals: Chastain (PK) Parlow (Lilly) Parlow (Fawcett) MacMillan CP was the WOTM.
This game was as expected. A MUCH better US team dominated an inferior Australian team. However the scorer was dead wrong on two of the US goals, the PK by Chastain and the goal by MacMillan were both own goals. Neither scores if they do not go off the keeper. In fact the Chastain goal was more of an own goal that MacMillan's. If it does not hit the keeper after hitting the post it would have to be finished by another player as it was heading away from the goal. The other goal the Australian keeper actually weakly slapped into the goal on a ball that was an easy turn over the top. While a good outing the US has faced no one that is able to even give them a good game in quite a while and that will not change at least until the finals of the Gold Cup when the US will play Canada as there is no other team in CONCACAF even close to either of those two. It is unfortunate that they could not find at least one good team for the US to play in this run up to the Gold Cup.
Initial US Fed article: http://www.ussoccer.com/news/fullstory.sps?iNewsId=22692&itype=113&icategoryid=63
It's true that the keeper could have tipped it over the top. But with no action from her, it would have sailed into the net on its own. So what would be the reasoning behind calling this an 'own goal'? The keeper attempted to make a save and failed. Looked to me like the right call was made.
The replay clearly showed that the ball was spinning into the middle portion of the goal before the keeper got her hand on it and deflected it in to the near portion. Obviously a goal, not an own goal.
It would have been ridiculous to call Mac's goal an OG, the ball was heading in regardless of the keepers touch. I can't believe that's what they initially scored it as. Brandi's PK was technically an OG, but it was a point-blank rebound off the post that the keeper wasn't actually trying to play. Usually there has to be some kind of intent to play the ball for it to be an OG, so I'd credit Brandi with it, even if she didn't deserve it. I thought the second goal was Lilly's, I thought Parlow never touched it but I guess I'm wrong there. Although the US was clearly the better team, the scoreline flattered them a bit and they were fortunate to get away with some of their sloppiness. Australia showed something for periods of time, but they miss having someone with a killer instinct like Murray up front. What was the attendance? Looked EMPTY there...
USWNT too good for woman competition, there is no real contender the closest rival Norway defeated recently ( 4-0 ), maybe they should be in the men competition next time.
I posted something like this in a different thread but I think US soccer needs to stop putting back-to-back US games in the same venue. If people are on a budget you're almost forcing them to choose sitting out one match to attend the other. That's going to drive attendance down automatically.
Pretty good showing by the U.S. I thought they controlled the game well, but in reality, Australia just doesn't have the scoring threat that some of the elite opposition (e.g. Norway, Germany) has. That's a pretty poor attendance for the national team, but I guess that's what you get on a school night when your primary audience is the pony-tailed hooligan crowd. Regarding the two potential own goals, I thought one of them could have been ruled that way. Certainly MacMillan's shot was going in. There's an argument that Brandi's PK would have bounced out if it hadn't hit the keeper's back. It was certainly unintentional, but like Donovan's cross that bounced off the Portuguese defender's back and into the goal, it could have been called an own goal. Maybe the difference is that Donovan was crossing while Chastain was shooting. Nice to see O'Reilly get some action with the senior team. At the U-19 World Cup, I was impressed with her combination of size and speed. At the senior level, both seem kinda average. Still, she's gonna be really good in a couple of years.
This is only the second time I've seen Wagner play. The first time I was very impressed, but I wasn't so impressed with her performance last night. At times she kept the ball too long, at other times her passes were off the mark and sometimes she made bad decisions when running off the ball. Her chip passes over the defense were excellent, though, as was her shot that hit the crossbar. Maybe she's just getting used to the new system. I'm not trying to be negative and I realize she's quite young compared to all the veterans who were out there. I expect a lot from her in the future and I'm sure she'll live up to those expectations, I just think this was a sub-par outing for her. On another note, Cindy Parlow continues to amaze me. What pretty goals. I saw her score on a backheel flick against Russia a few years back (at the Naval Academy in Annapolis) and for my money, that was the prettiest goal I've ever seen by anyone, man or woman.
Attendance 2,661? That's pathetic! And here everyone was bashing the attendance at Mitchell... I know it was a school night, but still! UGH! Santa Clara drew more for their big home game vs. Stanford (4756)! What's wrong with this picture? Is this tournament just not being promoted at all? I still wish we'd see a USA/Australia match (friendly?) here in San Jose--we ought to get some CyberRays fans out for that one at least!
Re: Attendance Two things. Weeknight - lowers attendence Back to Back games - Not that many people are going to go to both games. And if they pick a game they will probably go to the Sunday game. If attendence is still 2,500 on Sunday rip away.
The call should be based on what happened, not what shoulda-coulda-woulda if the keeper had not touched the ball. The fact is the keeper deflected the ball into the net. A tournement without competition, and now fans want to bend the facts in order to gild the lilly. Why not just set up 11 practice cones instead of carting in these "teams" from the far corners of the world? The result could would have been same. I'm tuning out the rest of this Cup. Maybe there will be some real competition in another 5 or 10 years.
Re: Re: Attendance Galaxy-KC drew 14k on the same night in the Rose Bowl -- MLS quarter-final, 3rd game of the series. In fact each MLS quarter final round last night outdrew the USA-Matilda waltz. I really resent no TV for the MLS playoffs. At least there is some competition, two teams with equal chances.
Re: Re: Attendance The Carolina Courage had much better attendance for a weeknight games. Granted they were during the summer (which is why I mentioned "school night" in my original post), but, for instance, 7,214 showed up for the Courage game vs. the Freedom on a Wednesday night on 7/31 when there was a Saturday game at home on 8/3 as well (and there were 6,629 for the Saturday game). So, I'm definitely NOT buying the "back to back games hurts attendace" argument. It didn't hurt the Courage attendance, and let's get real--this is the NATIONAL TEAM(!) even if it is a minor tournament! As far getting almost 2/3 less people because it is a "school night"...that's not likely all of the issue. I still think the low attendance points to very poor promotion!
I've seen any number of games where a keeper - in the attempt to make a save - had the ball roll over their hand into the goal, flicked the ball into their net when they were trying to flick it out, pushed the ball into the cross bar and back down into the goal when they were attempting to tip it over the top. All these balls were on frame but the keeper managed to do something that helped it on its way into the net instead of out of it. I can't remember a one that was called an 'own goal' in these cases. I resent your remark about fans 'bending facts' and 'gilding the lily'. I happened to disagree with what someone else had to say about that particular goal - from a pure technical aspect - not from some home team bent.
Was it my imagination, or was it mentioned that the Matilda's split two games with Canada earlier this year? I thought Brandi's PK was more of an own goal than Mackie's corner, and I was surprised that no one suggested it could have been ruled as such. I felt Mac deserved credit for her shot and was satisfied that the goal was given back to her. I solely based this, however, on the idea that the ball would have been in the net whether or not the keeper touched it, but I don't really know what the rule is. I just made that up, or maybe I surmised it somehow. I don't know, so I'll leave this up to the experts to decide.
That's not necessarily true. How many goals happen EVEN THOUGH a keeper gets a touch to the ball? A large number of them, acutally. That was a goal plain and simple. WRT to the PK, what impressed me most is how the keeper got over PAST the post from the center of the goal. You don't see many women keepers doing that. Ironically, if she hadn't dove so far, Chastain would have missed the PK. Terrible, terrible shot by Chastain. Sachin
Yes that was last weekend. Canada was missing Sinclair, Andrews and Moscato. ELO posted a link to an article about how short staffed Canada was going to be b/c of college obligations. Let me find the link............ http://waymoresports.thestar.com/NA...=979744613060&call_pagepath=MoreSports/Soccer
Well Wendy didn't even know it hit off the goalkeeper until it was replayed a few times. She was too fixated on how well placed it was, when in actuality, it hit off the keeper. I am not sure if I would call it an own goal since it did hit off the keeper's backside and she had no control over the ball hitting her there. I would definitely not rule Mac's an own goal though, since it was headed towards goal without the help of the keeper.
No that you mention it... I don't recall any instance involving the goal keeper touching the ball where the resulting goal was termed an own goal. It may be that the goalie either controls the ball or does not, and, if a goal is the result, it stands as a goal, assisted or unassisted as the case may be. It is possible that own goals only apply to field players, though I can't find a rule governing this distinction. Sorry about the other matter, but "gilding the lilly" seems to be the case whenever the WNT is involved in yet another missmatched competition.