Tokyo Olympics: USWNT vs Australia, July 27, pre/pbp/post

Yeah, of all the Central American fan groups, the Hondurans are always the nicest.

 

From the Caribbean, how's Trinidad? I only ask because years ago I had this acquaintance. She was a white girl but she loved Carnival and went to a lot of Carnivals in different places and she said her favorite Carnival was Trinidad. I can't remember the exact word she used, but it was just a good feeling, maybe even serene.

 

I accept all this as true. I just don't know how you read my sentence as contradicting any of it.

 

In the Caribbean, I've only been to games in Cuba, Trinidad and Grenada, but have experienced plenty of domestic Gold Cup and WCQing games against a fair number of other teams. I can't recall any nastiness or scary parts with any of them.

To be honest, when traveling abroad, I've never had any trouble - even when massively outnumbered (like walking around Estadio Azteca alone with a big Uncle Sam hat on in 2001). The only trouble I've experienced has been with fans in the United States. Both U.S. fans and fans supporting (mostly) Central American or Eastern European teams.

The only time I really felt like I was in the wrong place was in Korea around a bunch of Polish-American Poland fans. Frankly that was straight up scary, and it's probably best that they won the game against the U.S.

Traveling, as a man, for soccer games is great. And having your wits about you outside the environment of the stadium - and not getting too worked up about the odd beer being thrown into a section of Americans - is the key to success. One of the ugliest scenes I remember was at a doubleheader in San Diego in 1999. The U.S. and Mexico were playing and suddenly some drunk and angry Mexico fans above the Sam's Army section started raining beer and trash down on us. What happened next was that the sections on either side of Sam's Army - which were full of green-clad Mexico supporters, streamed into our section to join us - meaning that the Mexico fans above didn't have clean targets. They'd have to throw stuff on fellow Mexico fans. Most people are actually decent. And nice. They may hate your team, or your government, but on a personal level I've felt welcome everywhere I have traveled.

 

a mequetrefe.
Blanc -bec

 

I think fitness is a huge issue in this tournament given the age and injury status of some of the players, especially the forwards. Lots of forced rotation and tactical decisions that need to be made around the physical constraints of the players and how much they can actually run, rather than what's best suited to the opponent or the "DNA" of the team. It's hard to go all out with a high octane press when one of your forwards (rapinoe) literally cannot run, one is almost 40, one was out injured since December, one still doesn't look back from maternity, etc. I've noticed Press zooms past her defender and ends up in the box alone and she literally has no one to cross the ball to because Alex/Megan/Carli are huffing and puffing behind her. Luckily Own Goal is always there to help out if need be. I don't get not using Williams at all.

I'd say the roster selection is a problem of Andonovski's own making, but as AndyMead theorizes, I don't think he really gets to pick the roster. Megan Rapinoe and Alex Morgan are probably the two most heavily marketed players in American soccer and two of the most heavily marketed female athletes, period, and were always goign to be in Tokyo regardless of fitness/form.

 

Lol, everyone assumes an Italian will always understand Spanish. It's false.

Anyway, I guess I grasped the general concept.

 

I had to make you work a little

 

Actually I made a mistake. I always heard that word paired with "young" as in "your just a young whippersnapper" and I believed that "whippersnapper" was basically equivalent to "young" and used as added emphasizes. But, because I realized that I really had never actually heard anyone use it alone so that meaning could be gleaned from context rather than assuming meaning. Therefore I looked it up:

That was not the meaning I intended.
I was just trying to say "young person" in a somewhat novel way. I failed.

I could/should have used something like "youth" or "child" (Not quite as insulting and still somewhat funny.)
Or I could have drawn upon my slight knowledge of Middle English and said "gerol" or any of several other descriptive adjective or nouns.
As it was I "assumed" meaning from delving into the garbage collection that passes for my old brain and unintentionally produced an insult. Sorry for that.

What I should have said is, "at your young age you are still 'wet behind the ears'" or something to that effect. That may still be a bit insulting but it at least would have been intentional.

 

You meant pipsqeak.

 

What that dictionary definition misses is that "whippersnapper" is always, as far as I know, used jocularly or facetiously or even affectionately, a term of endearment. At least in contemporary usage.

 

Not really:

Sometimes I find trying to be "cute" with language causes misunderstandings while "language" should serve to make meaning more clear.
I find that trying to add meaning actually takes it away. Like one definition of "poetry" is: "The art of obscuring meaning with language."
or in another view of language:
"Thanks to words, we have been able to rise above the brutes; and thanks to words, we have often sunk to the level of demons." Aldous Huxley

I believe in using words as exactly as possible but I sometimes try to add meaning or levity and fail miserably. This seems to be one of "those" cases.

 

I didn't take it as an insult (my English proficiency wasn't even enough for that, if I'd wanted to! )

Actually the context was enough for me to understand that this was the intended meaning. At 47 I don't actually feel like a novice, but I have to admit that to you I am.

 

That is what I thought as well but I could find no definition where "Whippersnapper" has less than a bit of a derogatory meaning. When I imagine I hear it spoken it is always the voice of "Gabby Hayes" that seems to be uttering it but "Gabby" was apparently misusing it or at least his writers misused it.

 

On a more serious note, I think the group stage has shown that the US is simply not match-fit. It may have enough talent and willpower to take it past Netherlands, but it is struggling with injuries and the age of the roster just as some of us predicted it would, although no one that I know foresaw it would take the form of the US playing for a dull, dismal, dispiriting draw against Australia.

Sure, Ertz played back-to-back 90 minutes, but the one against Australia was largely played at a walking pace. How does a game like that help Ertz regain the timing and sharpness which will be needed in faster games against strong opponents? Perhaps most of you didn't notice, but soon after Ertz came on against Sweden, she committed 2 or 3 fouls in rapid succession, which had her frustrated and yapping at the referee who told her to settle down. And that was after a big tackle against Asllani which went unwhistled. Either that was a very very good tackle, which could lead you to think she's back; or it was a poor tackle which could've seen a yellow card; or a tackle in which she was lucky to get it right and which next time could go very very wrong.

The US has altered its game to try to conserve energy, doing very little pressing against both Sweden and Australia. We can hope that having reached the knockout stage, we're just going to flip that switch back on, but can we? And can we keep it up? The group stage has given us no evidence we can get back in sync on our press but, again, I suppose we can hope to.

Apart from any results, my biggest fear is that something ugly will happen (as if the 0-0 against Australia wasn't ugly enough). It's another thing I'm going to have to reverse-jinx. There are a few players I've called red-cards-waiting-to-happen but now I feel it's pretty much the entire bloody team. Their timing and flow is off, yet the will to win, the belief that they are the best and the gold is rightfully theirs to possess, will send them flying into tackles they shouldn't be making and I just hope no one gets hurt, because I don't think the referees are strong enough to stop it. They have crossed one line into cynical play, justified by the ends. What's one more, if the referees are going to permit it? I was horrified seeing Blackstenius crumpled in a heap after the collision of heads and bothered that Dahlkemper didn't show the slightest concern for her well-being, as if to say Blackstenius got what's coming to her. How dare she score twice on the US!

Sigh. Maybe it's better that we talk about pipsqueaks and whippersnappers and ne'er-do-wells and what-have-yous.

 

Actually I do not think the US altered their game to conserve energy. I think the team is playing EXACTLY how Vlatko Andonovski wants them to. His style seems "conservative" "Slow" "plodding" and "low risk." That is why I had some doubts about the US even getting out of their group but I had forgotten the stupidity of the groups where any half way decent team should advance because of there being at least one bad team in each group so, of the teams that are anywhere near decent all but one gets to advance to the knockout rounds.

I do not know if the Dutch will or will not beat the US but Vlatko Andonovski has done all he can to make sure that the US learns how to play very slowly and in that he has been very successful.

For the first time in a very long time I feel that the answer to the question: "Do you believe the USWNT will win their next match?" Should be "maybe" and not "yes."

I see a book coming from "Andonovski" titled: "How I singlehandedly changed the USWNT from winners to just average in spite of the pandemic."

It may not sell well here but its translations into many various other languages could hit it big as guidelines to avoid.

 

Close, but not quite right. Sauerbrunn said it was a half-walk.