Positives in the World Cup (besides the US)

I've been very happy with the play-by-play and in-game analysts (lets leave the U.S. matches out for a minute) during the WWC. I usually have an extremeeeeeeeeeely short fuse with those people.
Agree with the positive comments with the Fox studio presentation.

 

I'm positive we need better coaching and positive that we won't have a chance of getting it until after the Olympics.

A genuine positive is having a WWC so close to the USA that a lot of fans get to attend in person, that is cool but their (our) stories to others when they (we) get home (I was somewhat shameless in that regard at a youth tournament last weekend ;>)) are also going to help grow the game. Germany, France, Japan, etc. etc. do not have a 'log-jam' of other popular sports drawing their top athletes to them instead of football (the non-pointed ball kind).

 

Japan's play, Australia, Nigeria and Cameroon.

FOX has been really good as well, the studio hosts I mean not Tony and Cat. Their commentary is actually much better when it doesn't involve those two or the US.

 

Fox's coverage is good just because it's coverage. It's better than no pregame, you turn on the set and the whistle blows and they are off playing. The actual content of the pre and postgame is a lot of sound bytes -- there is very little real in-depth analysis. A typical one hour show has 24 minutes of commercials. Gets quite tedious. Leslie Osbourne and Heather Mitts need to drop the hammer on the USA's tactics and formation -- e.g. "There's no continuity in the USA's midfield play" instead of saying "this is not the right formation for the players to attack opposing teams". And maybe that's by design -- it's Lalas and Wynalda who have been tough. But it makes Leslie and Heather look like good sorority sisters who won't call out the team.

Ariana Hingst -- she's in a great spot. Her German team is kicking ass, she was tough on them when they drew Norway in group play. She's been brassy and patriotic without going too far over the top. She's a two time WWC champion -- so what she says has all the pedigree -- and nobody else on that panal have won a WC.

But what you have to keep in mind.. is that this is all SCRIPTED. You have your "nice" commentators, and you have your "edgy" commentators -- it's all about building a fake drama, "oooh, here we are in our nice studio, and hey, let's bring in an NFL football player" "Now lets's bring in our favorite chef for a low sodium meal" "Now let's go to our feel-good-she-came-with-the-odds-against-her-to-make-the-national-team-story" (which you could have seen online before the tournament started).

and just to MAKE IT APPEAR that there is someone to "contain" all of these "volatile" personalities, we have Rob Stone, whose a nice guy, great hair, sharp dresser, perfect name, and shows as much knowledge* about the game as the guy on top of the wedding cake. Hey, that guy IS Rob Stone!

*I'm sure Rob really does know the game -- but the role of the host on the set is NOT to display knowledge, that's why you bring in these former players to comment. He is the connector to the Very casual fan who doesn't know the game sitting at home, and asks innocently, "What does the USA have to do to improve in the next game?". Rob knows the answer, but he asks the question and other hanging sliders so the analyst can blast away.

It's Television, folks. And it's miles better than their golf coverage.

 

Yes, most of the match commentary has been decent (sans the 3 Cheerleaders), although it's obvious Jason Kutcher doesn't fully understand football. Lalas and Wynalda do not follow the women's game and are, therefore, fully scripted. Hingst, Smith and Gonzalez have been excellent.

I really dislike the way Fox has programmed the matches; that is, only giving the lineups in the pre-game fluff. It's absurd to tune into the beginning of a match and not know who is on the field. Surely, they could at least scroll the lineups if they're going to persist in only announcing them pre-game.

 

people like Lalas? I can't stand him. I like Kelly Smith, I think she would have been good as a color commentator as well (better than we have now at any rate). As for the announcing crew, I guess I'm so used to the mens game in that I can't stand almost all of the announcing crews at this WC. The exception would be John Strong, but he doesn't seem to get the prime time games which is a shame.

 

The purpose of this tournament was to expand the pool of nations to compete for the World Cup. By making places for 8 more teams, there were actually NINE newcomers to the tourney. That alone was a positive ... but there were many more positives for most teams.
Aside from Ivory Coast and Ecuador who had a very rough debut, other teams were able not to be embarrassed -- and even surpass their own expectations.
Thailand was outmatched -- but they played a disciplined style -- and did record their first win
Spain -- they needed finishing and they have a developing story with their own federation
Costa Rica -- They have played inspired football since the WC qualifiers -- and were a better representative from CONCACAF than were Mexico. A bounce here or there... one - two more well placed kicks and they could have gotten second place in Group E.

Switzerland and Netherlands -- Good 3rd place finishes in group play got them to the knock-out round. They are well coached, organized. They need more tools in more players toolboxes e.g. dummying the ball, looking one way and moving the ball another. They also need more experience against tougher team.

Colombia - They've got skills, they have tools, and they had the BIGGEST upset in Group Play with their 2 - 0 blanking of France. Unfortunate to draw the USA -- had they finished 2nd in their group, they would have played Norway - would have been an interesting matchup. Best team out of COMEBOL

Cameroon -- We can only hope that the Young Lionesses get the support they deserve. Two wins and a second place finish in group play -- They are fast, they are strong, they have a lot of style as well as decent technique. By far, the best team out of CAF, best of the newcomers -- I want to see more of them in the coming years.

 

I disliked that, too, so I -- did something about it

 

I agree, Saint. I was afraid with the expansion, there would be some embarrassing football played. That has not been the case, and all the newcomers have reason to be proud of their play in Canada. I hope their success, and making it to the World Cup IS success, helps to increase support for women's football in their respective countries and regions. (Spain's embarrassing brouhaha aside.)

The growing parity and success of women's football worldwide is one of the biggest positives.

 

Hucles, Hingst, and Gonzalez have been great - It's too bad Markgraff is under contract with ESPN (i assume?).
Cat is ok, I think Aly Wagner is smarter (football wise) and is much more articulate.

Also, Cat and Tony seemed to disagree a lot... for the lead up matches and first couple WC matches, which was annoying.

 

Saint, Colombia is not a newcomer. This was their second WC. In fact, we played them in the last one.

All 3 newcomers that advanced to the KO round were hampered by their lack of WC experience. A more seasoned Switzerland side would have won that game, and the same with Cameroon. I think Holland would probably have still lost even with experience, but they would have put at least one of their early chances away instead of relying on the worst keeper howler ever to get a goal.

All that being said, the expansion of the field has proven to be a success. As I posted elsewhere, the goal scoring did not increase by a large amount, even with the 3 blowouts figured in. Teams that before would be sitting at home wondering "What if" are now getting their chance to show their skills to the world. They'll take the experience gained in this WC and hopefully get better from it.

 

Its not just that there are more total teams and so more groups and group matches but there is also an additional elimination round now, like in the men's cup. This adds another layer of surprise and drama, for example Brazil going out. It only creates more opportunity for upsets. But it also lets fans have one more chance to really "get into" the tournament.

 

Speaking of announcers, I would like to say that on German television, the pre- and post-game parts of the telecast have one commentator and one expert, which use to play for the German women's soccer team. The game itself uses only one person to do play-by-play, no two or even three people at the game talking to, or interrupting, each other. By the way, game telecasting is done, in Germany, by the two national public television channels, ARD's Das Eerste and ZDF.

One positive is that one of the teams I have a warm spot over, Nadeshiko Japan, is through to the quarter-finals.

 

BlueCrimson... Correction on Colombia noted. I was expecting at least a half dozen blowouts --- and thankfully that did not happen. Even Ivory Coast pulled themselves together for the next two matches. I was most disappointed with Mexico -- they looked more like a debutante

These other two findings -- completely concur.

This may be a reach, but having a competitive WoSo team is one (not the only) litmus test of how women are being treated in a given nation. The empowerment of women to determine their own lives is the key to developing stable societies and the elimination of war and poverty. Yes it is one thing to have a National women's soccer team, and another for full equal rights under law. It's one thing to have a great striker, and still have a culture that is mysoginistic & discriminatory.

But Federations that really build teams, run with input from other women, that develop a true youth structure vs. Federations that just pay lip service and do the bare minimum. What the Spanish team is doing right now after the World cup demanding serious change in their future -- will the Brazilian Federation's residency support for their women's team translate into a more viable women's soccer culture -- the real positives from this World Cup may not be seen until another decade passes -- or we may see real progress by France 2019.

 

I have watched most of the match on the tube, and I'm in Vancouver for a few knockout round matches. Can hardly wait for Canada/England and another 55,000 plus crowd.

The positive I see is a marked improvement in the soccer played by the women from the World Cup just four years ago. There has been some beautiful midfield play from the Swiss, Australia, and others. Japan was remarkable v. The Dutch. I've see some great diagonal passes, tactics, creativity, team cohesion and some great individual skill. Finishing seems to be lacking, but that might be due to very disciplined defenses.

From my standpoint, women's soccer is progressing nicely everywhere except the U.S.

 

I have been impressed with the Fox coverage thus far. I was very skeptical that it wouldn't be the same relevance as ESPN coverage but they have done a great job doing a 1 hour pre-show with a panel of "characters"(not sure if ESPN ever did that with the women) and plus a "WWC Tonight" program that is also an hour long that summarizes what happened and what to look forward to the following day(Again, I am not sure ESPN ever did that with the previous WWC's). I seriously cannot tell the difference between Leslie Osbourne and Heather Mitts and I don't care for either. I know Heather Mitts was on the USWNT with Wambach so she's not going to be too critical of her. It's nice that Eric Wynalda and Alexi Lalas signed up for the gig as they normally could care less about women's soccer and probably find it boring to watch(who knows maybe they do like it but they seem like typical guys to me). I enjoy commentary from Monica Gonzalez, Kelly Smith, Angela Hucles, and Ariana Hingst. They should ask them to do this in 2019 as they are by far the best on the panel re: the women's game.

I have no idea who that neutral host woman with the English accent is except that she mispronounces cities, people's names, and probably hasn't seen a women's match in her life.

The guy Rob Stone which sounds like the perfect name for television, I don't know what he contributes other than just being another clueless neutral host.

I used to like Anthony D. but he seems annoyed half the time which I understand, but you're on television. Also Cat Whitehill is underwhelming and made mistakes like calling the USWNT the "white players" when they were facing Nigeria.

I like Aly Wagner and the guy she's paired up with and I'm not familiar with the other female commentators but I think they have commentated some of the NWSL matches before. Kinda miss Kate Markgraf(She works for ESPN), and Julie Foudy(as it pains me to say). Also what ever happened to Brandi Chastain or did she get fired because of the Hope Solo stuff?

As for the tournament, I've been so happy for the debutantes making good appearances. I think Ecuador was the one country that just had the hardest time and I would have rather seen Trinidad and Tobago instead but oh well, that's for another WWC.

My one gripe is the audio of the commentators seems to be like one second behind the action on the Fox Sports stations.

Oh yeah and Ari needs to just have her own show.

 

I would prefer Brandi Chastain over Julie Foudy as studio host. Chastain knows the game and gives insights better than anyone who does women's games. And, she is not afraid to criticize the USA. I'd actually prefer her calling the color commentary, as I think she would be the best at that as well.

 

I don't know, if you had Brandi and Tony doing color together, it would feel like a dark cloud rainstorm the whole way through.

 

Just Ian Darke and Brandi Chastain. DiCicco is knowledgeable but I prefer a two-person booth.

 

Bachmann
Kerr

Costa Rica's keeper
Cameroon's forward
Marozsan sp?

Japan's style of play, for the most part
Australia's advancement

 

Arianne Hingst is a little too annoying for me. She is so uber pro Germany and like she is just SO excited about Germany it's kind of insane almost, she acts like this is Germany's first ever World Cup and we all should be wildly cheering for the future of this new National Team. It's like, Ari... Germany is #1 in the world and has already won it twice, noone likes to cheer wildly for such a team... calm it down a notch please....

I agree that Tony D. is getting insane with his criticisms as a commentator during USA matches. JUST CALL THE GAME. FOCUS ON WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING and not just say what you want to happen ALL the time. It's fine once in a while but not nearly as much as he does it. JP Dellecambra brings absolutely nothing to the commentary, he literally repeats the time and the score over and over AS THOUGH WE CAN'T SEE THOSE THINGS THE ENTIRE MATCH IN THE TOP LEFT CORNER OF OUR SCREEN? I swear I think JP seriously believes people are listening on the radio when he commentates.

 

Oh dear Lord in heaven above, have you replayed the US/Canada Olympic Semi? Have you replayed it 100+ times?
My absolute favorite sporting game/match/event in 55 years on this planet and I have to fight through her incomplete thoughts, ill-placed comments and uncontrollable bodily noises when something exciting happened.
As you have surmised, I respectfully disagree.