I think you're probably right. Dunn's a midfielder/forward that has been converted into a left back because of her speed, but spread doesn't always make up for mistakes when you over commit against quality players. I won't be particularly surprised if France win the game. I like the way they play, they combine well and move the ball quickly. But they are a little like Wenger's late stage Arsenal's teams, a lot of beautiful soccer without a matching end product.
Two of the starting midfielders fit this description, Jule Ertz.and Sam Mewis. Ertz is 5' 7" but plays a little bigger, (when not starting as a midfielder, she's a first choice CB) and Mewis is 5' 11". I think Mewis, in particular, had a pretty good game yesterday.
Likely Ertz, who I thought was a standout for the US. She's one of those who can quietly boss a game.
The Japanese women are a joy to watch. So unlucky, wish they were still in it. I hope VAR gets the guillotine soon, it may well ruin the game.
Just flipped in Jamaica v Curaçao and Curaçao just scored a Xhaxa-boom in the 3rd minute of a minimum 5 of stoppage time to make it 1-1. Wow.
Some of the Japanese through balls were KILLER, just daggers right down the center, so damn effective. As a forward, what more can you ask for, on their equalizer?
In rugby we have had great VAR for years, so I find it hilarious how hard football finds this The key to VAR as shown in both Rugby and Cricket is that the discussions between the video ref and the on field ref need to be fully televised. It has to be part of the entertainment and fully transparent. What goes wrong in football is that you have the commentator talking about the images, which may bear no resemblance to what the refs are discussing. So then the decision may make no sense as we don't get any reasons. Personally I think as in Rugby, if the on field Ref does not call for VAR, it cannot be used - unless foul play is picked up. (i.e. a potential red card offence) Also - similar to cricket you could allow each team to have 1 review they can choose to use.
They have goal line tech in the AFL and its an absolute mess. Thats the key. Give teams two VAR reviews per match and if they are right, they keep them, if they are wrong, they lose them.
Also the ref running to the side to look at a monitor is like so old man The replay can be on the big screen and viewers watch at home The VAR really makes the call, so the ref doesn't need to run sideline and then be filmed watching the replay - its such poor production which excludes the audience Amazing how football can't get these simple aspects of entertainment and TV production correct I still suspect the real reason to keep football VAR non transparent is the corruption Rugby reffing is 100% transparent and everything is mic-ed up
Since it was in Spanish I had no clue what the commentator was saying, but holy shit, that goal advanced Curacao to the knockout stage! Well done!
wonderful Concacaf arranging double headers for the last group games so the teams that play 2nd know what result they need to advance. Fortunately for Curacao, El Salvador completely blew it losing 4-0 to Honduras. However imagine the celebrations for Curacao had they known that goal would've clinched them a place in the.next round.
Seriously? I thought the last matches of any group stage were to be played simultaneously so as to avoid a repeat of the Disgrace of Gijon.
I generally agree, but the rush to implementation is mind boggling. They decided to debut VAR at the world cup, with referees that have 0 experience with it??!?!?!?! Surely they knew that there would be a statistically significant increase in penalties and handball decisions? I have no doubt they *could* get VAR to work well overall, but it needs either your option (the red flag), or they need to change some rules. VAR (in my opinion) overrides the intention of the rules. There are just so many offside calls and penalty calls that are being called that were not intentions of the rules. Mostly I just feel bad for the women that they were the guinea pigs here, of course, in their biggest competition.
They also decided to implement new rules effective June 1st so they all apply to the World Cup as opposed to, you know, keeping the rule changes for after the World Cup.
Not sure about Asseyi but Diani was the most notable/impressive player to my mind. Although I've only "watched" one of their matches so far.
When you say the VAR makes the decision, not the ref, I suppose you're referring to Rugby. Clearly in football the ref still has the final decision, thus the occasional run to the sidelines to watch video themselves. Too bad that VAR is getting so much stick at '19 WWC compared to '18 WC where it garnered a lot of converts, even many of the grumpy pundits who originally opposed it on general principals, came around to it. I think the real problems with VAR at this WWC, and in general, are more to do with: 1) The decisions that involve VAR are way. too. slow. They need to work that out. There have been so many instances of +7mins added on to halves. That's a problem in many ways, including disruption to the flow of the game, not to mention being able to fit matches into the hallowed 2hr TV time slot. 2) IMHO the problem is more with the refereeing decisions based on VAR, rather than with the VAR concept or technology. This WWC seems to exemplify that. 3) Showing video replays of controversial decisions on the stadium screens is, I agree, very key. Including those crucial and frequent offside freeze-frames. If fans and players can't see what the refs see, or what the people at home see, it's only going to breed more underinformed disgruntlement (e.g. Cameroon vs England)
I always liked Megan Rapinoe, but today I heard about this, and my respect for her only went up a notch or two p.s. Sorry if this offends any of you, or violates the unofficial rule of "no politics in footy forums", but since we're following and talking about USWNT, I think it's relevant. And I think more people, especially those in positions like hers, need to speak up. Truth to Power. @yossarian if you must delete this post, I understand.
This forum has thankfully generally been at least tolerant with "kneeling". Don't do it on the USMNT forum though, it's barely one notch below /r/The_Donald. I was more than a little disappointed that she was the only one to take a stand -- especially when they have their own lawsuit pending against their own "federation". She sometimes can rub me the wrong way, but her conviction and importance over the last decade+ is undeniable. I can't wait for the day until we're no longer afraid of our nationalists -- "free speech" only for them.
England ladies look like the real deal today. It's helped a bit that Norway seems to have lost their ability to defend. Edit: England's American-ish keeper seems to be their biggest weak spot. Their sticking with her for the tournament it seems but it could be dicey. Which sets up a semi against USA or France. Could be tasty.