I love how they did this on Mother's Day. I honestly altered my Mother's Day plans for this showing. LOL - you got me US SOCCER - and all that work for you US SOCCER. It must be funny for them. Someone at us soccer is getting a chuckle out of this. I can hear their meeting on Monday. "Boy, I bet we pissed off a bunch of wacked women's soccer fans. They bitched about out MatchAccess - who did they think they were - we showed them. Look at all the emails coming in. Like a bunch of pissed stingless bees. Bet they think they have a voice here at US SOCCER. HA - haven't they got it. Ruck the women - Its all about the guys team." Face it - unless the sponsors care - we have no impact. They do not care about the women's team fans. Just the sponsors.
here is the sponsor list http://www.ussoccer.com/sponsors/index.jsp.html i think we are especially important to Jose Cuervo and Budweiser. If it means pressuring them to do something ill stop drinking during matchtraker. I won't like it, but ill do it for the team. Matchtraker BOOOO...BEER, not now i am on strike
Maybe we should tell them that we purchase a buttload of Budweiser just to make it through a CrapTracker game! Wait, maybe not, maybe they will just tell USSF to keep up the good work. Maybe if we tell them how much we loved their old commercials with Julie Foudy, we could get some now.
Until fans of womens soccer are willing to pay for coverage indirectly or directly, they won't get it. It's Economics 101. It's not Rocket Science or Brain Surgery. Internet petitions and web sites are pretty sad, in my opinion. Spending the same effort and money on more productive ways to get coverage may not have the same "feel good" feel, or public ego stroking, but it's far more successful. The WUSA no longer exists partly because the fans failed to live up to their end of the bargain. Yeah, it's easy to blame the folks running the WUSA, but the blame can definitely be spread around. Nine thousand attendance? That's a joke. When was the last Women's National Team game in DC? DC United play 20 home games a year and a crowd that size on a nice and cool Saturday night would be considered a disaster. Where are the fans? I spent nine hours in a car yesterday to cover the game. Apparently a lot of "fans" couldn't spend 9 minutes. You would think the pent up demand in the DC area - a huge hotbed of soccer fans - would have gotten a far larger crowd. And it's not just DC. WNT crowds are atrocious everywhere they play anymore. You wonder why the number of games on TV has dropped? You wonder why overall coverage is down? It's because the fans don't demand it. A few hardcore whiners with a petition or WoeIsMeIcantWatchTheUSWNTwhenIwant.com website isn't really relevant. You want coverage - convince the sponsors that it's in their financial interest. And not with boycott threats, but with positive - we're going to make you rich - reinforcement. That's what works.
I (and others) got that fan stuff on lock. I'm willing to come to any and every game they do have in the area. I would buy more merchandise but they don't even have the jersey of my favorite player, you know the one who scored a HAT TRICK last night. To me the main thing that's rendering the fanbase is the exposure. It's gotten better but it has to get alot better to reach more people. I have played soccer for 6 years and I never paid attention to the Women's National team until 2006. Why is it that they can drum up support for a fledgling Men's National team but not the Women's team? They could be playing Estonia and they would blow that crap out of proportion. Their one of the best teams that this country has to offer somebody get them a damn publicist! There's a reason why not alot of people really know who they are. Does the fact that they're women stop them for having mass fans? Don't even get me started on the audacity of ESPN to show me messy soccer every Thursday night. I AM A DIE HARD WOMEN'S SOCCER FAN, SO GIVE ME AND OTHERS ALIKE SOME DAMN WOMEN'S SOCCER. I wish they knew the trouble that we all go through just to watch most of the DAMN games! I'm willing to offer my stomach and or my back as advertising space! (rant over)
You may be right, Andy. However, whining is a lot cheaper and a hell of a lot more fun. However, many of us already spend a fair amount of money following this team. I'm probably in the $1,000+/year neighborhood. It used to be higher, but it's harder to travel to games with a munchkin. Certainly, letting current sponsors know that their commitment to this team affects our purchases could help. I also believe that letting Panasonic know that the MatchAccess which sports their logo is a pile of @#$@#! They might just tell ussoccer to get it right or lose them as a sponsor.
After some thought I think I'm just going to go some sources and ask a couple of questions, to see if I can't get down to the bottom of this. Us disgruntled Women's Soccer Fans might be able to lead a new movement if we get our heads together and pick eachother's brains.
Get to the bottom of what? Seriously, what are you talking about? A "movement"? Really what "movement" would that be? How altruistic is "give me the WNT on TV because I enjoy it?". You want to start a "movement", the "world peace" thing could use some help. You want to watch women's soccer on TV, try convincing your friends and relatives to watch and support the games that are broadcast. It's a numbers game. In 1999 we had the numbers. It got us three years of the WUSA and about five years of 10+ games a year on ESPN/espn2. All that happened without petitions, without websites. It happened because we had the numbers that turned up at the games and tuned in the broadcasts. It's not a "movement" that's needed.
Andy, while I do not think you were intending to berate me personally, it sure feels like it. I would be happy to spend some hard earned cash to "BUY" a game (if only I had EVER been given the opportunity to do so). I am not willing, however, to fly across the country to make you feel better about fan attendance. I attend plenty of games at the home depot center, thank you very much. Secondly, if there is no national exposure or build up or advertising for a team, how on earth are they supposed to sell tickets? The ONLY reason I was aware of the games is because I am registered at USSOCCERFAN and I get the email links for the games. I am thinking that if even a tiny bit more money on advertising, they might actually get a few people attending. Also, if there were games on TV that would provide exposure and serve to promote the next game, maybe a few more people would attend. DO NOT put this all on the fans, some of whom are here because this is the only place they can actually get any news about the USWNT. Final thought, if I have to pay to watch a game it better be on my big screen HDTV rather than on my computer.
...meant "yo guys" Anyway, they seem to have everything up there on the ussoccer video thing... apart from the highlights
Just home from work after a twelve hour day. I take it that the rebroadcast did not go off as planned. I was very genuinely looking forward to watching a copy of the match that one of my tech savvy fellow BSers would have surely copied and posted by now had US Soccer done its job. Yet, I can sit here and watch hours and hours of softball. Too bad I just can't make myself care about softball. Nothing against softball btw, just not my thing.
I see that Mitts started another game and played the whole 90. Does anyone who was at the game know how she played? It was against Canada that she got hurt before the WWC.
I thought she played well. Canada did not apply much pressure in the run of play, but she was solid all around. No glaring mistakes, some good decision making--e.g. in the second half, after thinking about charging upfield for a loose ball, she tracked back, allowed the Canadian player to bring the ball toward her, and then won the ball by stuffing the pass directed behind her. I think she's the one who played a great ball to Wambach that resulted in Kai's third goal. Several good crosses, good overlapping runs, and she was still working hard at the end of the match. I didn't notice her so much in the first half--come to think of it she put in a couple of nice crosses in the first half that weren't finished--but she had a very good second half, I thought.
I thought she played a very solid match. The first 20 minutes she made some nice touches and aggressive passes.****She moved up and down, side to side well.****She went up against Sinclair multiple times 1v1 and pretty much stuffed her on the spot every time. She made some nice tackles which was nice to see she had no problem taking on the bigger Sinclair. I thought the starting 11 looked very comfortable with each other. It was nice to see this group play.****I think the back line will continue to get stronger and I do see Mitts starting.****She brings a speed that Cox doesn't have and a confidence on the ball the Buehler doesn't have. Plus, she's pretty tough. I was on the field and everyone was communicating well.****Hope and Markgraff especially and HOA to Mitts also. Kai, Abby, Tarp and Lloyd were very active.****HOA made a few great runs, I love when she cuts to the middle and I want to see her take on players more often 1v1. Boxx was solid, but faced literally no pressure. For some reason she is the one person who worries me most of the 11.****I'd love to see Osbourne play more.**** All and all a fun game, but again, Canada played poorly.
I pretty much agree with Brooklynsoccer and Leviathan. I felt Mitts had a good game and looked both comfortable and solid in the back. If everybody stays healthy, I'd say this line-up (Chalupny, Rampone, Markgraf, Mitts) are our starting four in China. Also agree that despite some individual efforts by Tancredi and Lang, Canada's attack never got organized, Sinclair seemed uninvolved, and USA was not rigorously tested. Another thing I like about Mitts is that she provides an offensive symmetry in the back that we don't otherwise have. With this line-up, both Chalupny and Mitts are comfortable swinging deep up the sides and it still leaves a strong back three. This is really good for Tarpley, though HAO seems to be having a bit more trouble figuring out how to play the numbers advantage when they come up her side. My only complaint about Mitts was that she had a couple good looks from about 25 yds out on the flank and both times she laid the ball off. In fairness, I think this is coaching (Sundhage had an interview on this very point, under the general topic of patience), but IMO she should have pulled the trigger (Chalupny did when she had similar chances)-- Mitts had a couple nice looks -- why not take the shots? IMO, when either of these backs take off, we need to be getting the bugs out of this "overlappy thing" that Boxx and Lloyd are doing in the center, and improving communication between the two of them and the weak-side flanker so these three know who has the back post and who is providing cover against the counter (this aspect of our game actually looked better after Osborne came in)-- then these overlapping backs can have the freedom to fully explore their options. But hey, thats just me. Mitts looked very good. On the flip side of my complaint that the WNT is not being opportunistic enough on attack-- I must say that Wambach's assist on the first goal was one of the most unselfish and elegant lay-offs I have ever seen, and just exquisitely pretty soccer. She should get bonus style points for that one-- and it is a huge culture shift from the Ryan era where I am pretty sure she would not remotely have been looking to make a pass. So, I guess there are benefits to the new coaching philosophy. I'm gonna wait and see. I don't want to sound like Ryan, but if there is a weakness to our current attack, it may be that we are a bit too elegant. If we face Germany, I don't think they will give us many chances-- perhaps we should be more psychologically prepared to snap at the ones we get? Time will tell. One final game note: Kai--OMG-- the gal's on fire!! What a great game! What a great series of games! She has looked like HAO when she played for Carolina-- she is everywhere--she is just blazing. And Wambach is her playmaker? Am I in some parallel universe? I think we go to China with three forwards: Wambach, Kai, Rodriguez. They all look great. We go with seven midfielders-- several of whom could play up top if needed. Probably we start with the back line we saw against Canada-- I think it is the best shape we have seen yet, and Mitts is clearly a big contributor.
I couldn't agree more. Kai was ultra-aggressive on the attack - challenging Canada's D, buzzing around the Canadian GK - generally directing enormous energy toward the Canadian net. It was a sight to see - and it worked partly because Abby remains a major threat while making great plays.
Those were some fun goals. I like the one where Kai just nudges it past the keeper. Mitts would probably be the first to admit that shooting is not her strength. She couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from distance. Chalupny can shoot, but Mitts should never shoot unless she is close enough to throw the ball into the net.