There are CONSTANT discussions about professionalism in the game. About not acting like an asshole when it's out of hand. Is it in a book? Nope. Welcome to the big time, USWNT! You're getting criticized for being dicks.
No, it would have been paranoid. "Welcome to the big time"?? To the defending champions? Is this some attempt at advanced Irony?
Almost any chance a team gets to sub a two- or three-goal scorer off the field before the end, they take, usually for two reasons: 1. Caution - yes, they do this. 2. To give the player a chance to be recognized by the crowd for his or her accomplishment. If there were subs left when Morgan scored #3, Ellis's next move should have been to give her a curtain call and wrap her in bubble wrap. There is NO reason to keep a player who's scored 3 in a rout-of-routs on for 90 minutes. Yes, big time. Big time pros get actual criticism from people who give a shit. They've been coasting on a relative lack of general criticism for approximately ever, with women's soccer fans being the only large group to kinda-sorta hold them to account now and then.
There are exactly 3 reasons: If she wants to sub 3 other players more. I've really never seen a team and coach so criticized in a flawless win. People are searching so hard for something to complain about. I don't get it.
Flawless? I watched most of the second half. When you have all the time and space in the world, you're going to get shit done. Aside from Morgan, there were some TERRIBLE touches out there. Zero things were learned.
No. According to you, and many others here, we learned a LOT. We learned how "classless" our team is, and how horrible the coach was for not making a mercy substitute... or something. If nothing was learned, why are people talking so much about it? Be happy we got warmed up for the tougher games, and got out without injuries.
Yes. They were in fact, out of subs. They subbed out Lavelle and Heath at 57 when the gd reached 7 and Ertz at 69, score still 7-0. Morgan's third was at 74 , at which point she was out of position at midfield-- the forwards were (theoretically) Lloyd, Press and Pugh... And the players subbed out were the people more likely to suffer freak injury and also more important. They have played for extended periods of time without Morgan this cycle and been good, but Heath is the fulcrum of the attack and Lavelle has been Fragile with a capital F and Ertz is the fulcrum of the defense...
A curtain call substitute made with an eye to avoiding injury is literally SOP in the game, and at much lower scores than this. People are talking because people are paying attention. As for this game's value as a warm-up, it is almost harmful (the draw is FIFA's deal). It tells us nothing about how they will do against a semi-competent team and probably didn't even offer much of a fitness challenge.
When Sweden plays Thailand next and knows exactly the goal difference to target? There are a number of teams in this competition that can beat Thailand by 7, IMO.
Because of their reactions at the time! A foot stomp would have humbled someone out there. I know that.
Listen...US is +13 and Sweden is +2 after one game. Does anyone seriously think the US is LESS THAN 2 goals better than Chile? That makes Sweden's target 13 or more. That's a goal every 7 minutes minimum. Yes, the US managed it. Is Sweden likely to come anywhere near that?
A "foot stomp"? A violent attack? Again this gleeful imagining of violent retribution by the same people aghast at simple celebrations. Can someone square this circle for me?
No, but that was not your original statement. You said 7 would've been enough. 7 is a bit less than 13. You can disagree, but in my opinion there are other teams there that can be Thailand by 7. Is Sweden one? We shall see.
Or by tying them, with a better goal difference. Anyone that thinks this isn't important as a way of to advance has forgotten the US men's game in Trinidad.