Yeah, it was all unwise, and hindsight is 20/20, but this tangentially brings up another difference in men's leagues and women's: there are many more people willing to lose money for years on men's soccer than women's. The average MLS team only relatively recently started earning profit, but there's this expectation that woso leagues should almost immediately be self-sustaining.
I am not opposed to the tour. I am opposed to it happening at the expense of NWSL games. Your point about not partnering with MLS is a valid one. To me, this issue is creating a broad based prosperity across the NWSL, so all players can benefit financially. Instead, what we have now is the WNT players making substantially more than everyone else. The way the system is set up, there is no incentive for players to go back to their NWSL teams quickly because they get paid by the federation. Part of what is missed in the whole equal pay controversy is that the women get their salaries paid by US Soccer, while the men get most of their income paid by their pro teams. All I am trying to say is that is in the long term interest of WOSO for the NWSL to succeed, and that drawing players and attention away from NWSL league games for a glorified exhibition is not helping the NWSL to succeed.
England was the best team we played and could have beat the U.S. They were very good. I think the semifinal loss gutted them and it showed in the first 25 minutes of their loss to Sweden.
In response to the victory tour discussion, first, I'll say it again: it is in the new CBA that the victory tour was changed to four games and only held within FIFA dates. That's what the players wanted, so again this is the USSF (not the players) making money off the women's team. Second, if USSF really cared about marketing the NWSL, there were ways to do both. This first game, held outside of FIFA dates on an NWSL match day, could have been held in Chicago as a doubleheader with the Chicago Red Stars game. It would have still drawn players away from their teams, but it could have drawn attention to the NWSL instead of away from it. Finally, I will just say that I get it. I get the USSF wanting to capitalize on the moment, and I get the players only have a limited amount of time to capitalize on the increased potential for endorsements and building their brand. But it still sucks for the NWSL. Also I'll point out that there has been a thread created about the Victory Tour. Can we move the discussion over there?
AvisDay thanks for taking the time to post up that data. Y'all can make your own conclusions. I'll stick with mine. She ran out of gas in the second half of matches. Now certainly I expected that with a 34 year old winger. But you also can't get past the fact that she got such kudos from many on here for her play against Spain and Sweden when she in fact did very little beyond score PKs. Again nowhere did I ever say Rapinoe was bad or poor. What I said is that I felt she was overrated for her actual run of play and that there were other players that may have been better out wide especially in the second half of our matches. But at the end of the tournament we won so all's good.
DATELINE Prague.........High ranking authorities at Interpol are asking for your help in identifying this man: He is apparently traversing the continent reminding all Europeans who the FOUR time Women’s World Cup Champions are.
Haven't caught up yet on the latest conversation, but I saw this and wanted to at least mention what my vote would've been for: Golden ball: Lavelle Silver ball: Aslani Bronze ball: Bronze
You probably don't know what really happened that led to Solo's benching. What you do need to know is that Greg Ryan NEVER speaks ill publicly of any of his former players and has steadfastly held to that practice since he was fired. Since you don't know what happened and why Ryan did what he did, you are likely premature in defending her in '07. And just to show I don't dump on Solo just for the fun of it, I think she was right to call Sweden cowards for bunkering. If there were a way to ban that strategy soccer would be the better for it.
I think it might not be Ryan's own decision, the veterans probably pushed for that. But regardless of the situation, it's a big big mistake that completely backfired. But thanks to it, the incident let ppl be clear that you cannot live in the past just like Solo have said. I still think the 2007 team had the strength to win on player ability, but became a disaster because of tactic and locker room drama.
Lavelle had a better final than Rapinoe, by far. Rapinoe did not play in the semifinals. Rapinoe outplayed Lavelle in the quarters. Lavelle had a stronger game against Spain. That leads to a conclusion that Lavelle gets it over Rapinoe. But something else should be considered. The US scored five goals in four games off the run of play. The offense was adequate but not dominant. What was dominant was the defense and the defensive midfield play. Anchoring that was Ertz, who played well in all four knockout games. That is why if not Lavelle she was the right choice as Golden Ball.
I am pretty certain it was Ryan's decision, and the veterans backed him because his decision to bench her was the right one based on team discipline. And Solo's statement that she would have made the saves Scurry did not violates ethos number one in a team sport, so Ryan was right to throw her off the team.
Because the US are facing strong opponents. France has only conceded 2 goals before, England 1, Netherlands 3. The only game we could blame is the Spain one, probably Horan would have make some difference had she started but she was on a yellow. Other than it, the only thing we could blame is the waste of chances in the latter stage of the final, especially Tobin Heath, dunno what was in her mind. What team discipline? Solo didn't do anything wrong and was great as the keeper before the semi. Scurry was a disaster in that game, the first own goal was a miscommunication between the backline and the keeper, if Solo was there she would be able to prevent at least 2 goals and the US probably didn't have to come out. In the 2008 final she didn't concede one goal against Brazil and did well in the 2011 match. It was a HUGE mistake to bench her in the semi final.
This is way OT, and you can't do this in tournament play, obviously. But .... I've long advocated a points system for leagues in which if you don't score, you don't get a point. In other words, 0-0 draw, no one gets points. 1-1 draw, each get's a point. So, both teams at least have to make an effort to score.
It's a business decision. There are many many profitable men's soccer leagues in the world. The upside for a men's soccer league is huge. Is there a single profitable women's sports league in the world? This "people are willing to lose money on men's soccer, but not on women's" is the talking point du jure. It is bias. But, it ain't gender bias. It's "I want to make money" bias. Everyone who makes this complaint should email Mia Hamm. She is part owner of LAFC (for anyone in the thread who didn't know). Heard her quote today - she will have to wait at least three years to see "if a women's team would be viable." Mia did not start up or invest in a women's team. She did so with a *men's* team. And, she's waiting three years to see of a women's team *would be viable* You want to talk about why people invest in men's teams, not women's? Ask Mia.
Why? Every sport has the same end point. To win the freaking game. NBA banned zone defense now its a three point shoot fest and nobody plays any defense. Baseball has the strike zone so small they way its called now its home run derby. However there is a very simple solution to those who don't line to see a team bunkering. Don't watch it.
You missed the first point. Every sport has a freaking end point: to entertain. To that end, college basketball instituted a shot clock. And, thank goodness for it.
Well that of course is correct. However, not everybody defines being entertained the same way. I would rather watch a bunker win than than an entertaining loss. But that is why I said there's an easy solution no matter which end of the spectrum you find yourself on. Don't like or are bored, don't watch. Now certainly most everybody would prefer an entertaining W. But sometimes that isn't likely to occur given the opponents.
It all really depends if the Golden Ball is the Most Outstanding Player or the Most Valuable Player. MVP factors in, IMO, being clutch and being a leader, as well as how the player impacts wins. Most Outstanding, IMO, reflects being the "best" player on the pitch. I have absolutely no doubt Pinoe was the MVP of the US team, and hence the World Cup. Ertz and Lavelle have arguments for being Most Outstanding.. I would probably pick Ertz because Lavelle failed several times to cashing in with a goal when she probably should have scored.
Also Cameroon in 1990. Still heartbroken about that loss to England- should have been avoided. What- no love for the Four Corners? You're probably too young to remember that...
Yup OT but let me add a point. I get where you are coming from but its not always reality. There have been tons of 0-0 matches where teams have tried to score but just didn't. Look no further than the first half of the Gold Cup Final. Are you going to tell me the US didn't try and score? Some of the best soccer they had played in a long time but they just couldn't finish. And I have seen plenty of 1-1 games where you could say the teams weren't really trying to score too!