Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2016 Olympic Women's Soccer Tournament' started by lil_one, Jun 6, 2015.
Sorry, I know I am verbose.
Must come from my job, somehow (I am teacher).
Here in the States, there is a Spanish language network called, Univison Deportes. The folks on Super Estadio were just discussing Pia and her strategy to get to the final. My Spanish is limited but they did mention Hope and the other stuff. Pia's "old ass" (@debzy ) got people everywhere talking about the women's game.
I'm actually jazzed for the final. Won't waste my time being bitter, as my side had their chances. I'll die if Sweden comes out and scores multiple goals on Germany to win gold. I love the Germans as whole, but that would be an epic troll job in the history of the game if Sweden did that! lulz.
Pretty much agree with you on Sweden's play, but nevertheless, I think I might actually cheer for Sweden in the final just because they haven't ever won a WWC or Olympics; I know, its a lame reason, so I'll add that I've also had an affection for Seger ever since her time in the WPS. Anyway, my cheering for Sweden is probably good news for German fans....
Having watched both the Sweden QF and SF, I would say that Sweden's defensive performance in the US game was a bit more attractive (for those who can find defense and bunkering attractive). However, the US's lack of finishing precision and inability to open up the defense with a final pass was the big reason for the result. (I thought Brazil did better on opening up the defense than the US but just couldn't finish.)
You're right that having a different winner team in books would be a plus. It's not a lame reason, it's something I often strongly considered too when deciding who should I root for in a particular match, in any sport. It's just that... in this case this motivation can't win for me vs the boring and lame style of defense Sweden team showcased!
Anyhow, you know that, with your endorsement, you just put the last nail on the coffin of Sweden's hopes for the gold, don't you?
RIP Sweden. LOL
I happened to notice a link to an article user Calci0 posted on the US thread, and it summarizes pretty well why I am not the only one to root for Sweden to lose the final, in a way that's not too far from what I said in my previous post on the subject:
In particular, I like what the guy wrote about the fact that a Sweden's win would undermine the consideration occasional viewers have for women's football in general; I experienced this first-hand: my dad, who doesn't use to watch women's football, was following the Brazil-Sweden semi-final with me and, although he didn't dare to say it openly, his comments about the inability to score from both teams seemed to imply that he was considering the girls on the pitch as quite "amateurish".
Sweden will do what they have to do, and if they'll win noboby will ever dream to take away anything from their merits, but you have to admit that they don't sell a very entertaining image of women's football...
Top 10 things we have learned from this Olympic tournament, starting at #10:
10.) None of the three medal winners from last year's WWC made it to the Semifinal (USA, Japan, England).
*this is the first time that has ever happened in Women's Football
9.) No matter how good Australia can look at times, they just don't persevere and prevail when it matters.
*they persevered in the clutch more when they were a bigger underdog back in the Never Say Die Matildas era
8.) Colombia can be giant killers if you let them hang around (France last year, and the draw against USA this year)
7.) Pia Sundhage is already now the most successful coach in Olympic history, regardless if she gets her 3rd Gold
6.) Marta is fizzing away. She's no where near the best overall player in the world, she's just a shell of what she was
5.) Hope Solo is a sore loser, plain & simple. Just deal with it, sometimes the team with the better stats doesn't win
4.) Canada has some nice young talent and they can only get better from here, but they need to learn to win in the knockout stage. They were not gonna beat Germany twice in the same tournament, only USA can do that now.
3.) Allie Long likes to wear pink thongs under her soccer shorts and then re-tweet it on Twitter when called out
2.) France, France, France, they look so dominant at times, but then you put them in an environment where they can play for a title, and it's like they just fold. It's a mental thing for them. They need to overcome this.
1.) The two teams who made it to the Final were probably the two most "disappointing" teams in Group Stage.
*Germany only scored 4 points in their group, and it should have been 3, as Australia was up 2-0 on them.
*Sweden was dominated by Brazil by a score of 500-1 or something like that, and they were not good at all against South Africa, and not very impressive vs. China either.
Bonus: USA did not get to the Semifinal for the first time. Symbolically this was eventually going to happen, and if so, from the coach that knows how to beat them best (Pia).
I've previously (years ago) thrown this same question at U.S. fans, and found myself in heated battles for daring to question the win at all costs attitude of a popular, but respectfully technically average team, which at that particular point in time without much genuine flair/style, was trying to brand it's self as one of the greatest sports teams in the world, as poorly funded semi pro/amateur wnt's like Brazil with players like a prime Marta, were unfairly being tasked with taking everything to a whole new level.
So at what point is there a genuine onus on the games better sides to have to try and entertain though, or is it as simple as fans from various wnt's suggest it is, when they tell their detractors to stick their pretty football up their ass whenever rejoicing a surprise victory..?
The vastly improved bunker and counter ability of female wnt's has been around for some time, showcasing it's self within the younger age groups globally, and effecting the biggest contests of the European club scene too; but surely the women's game at the elite levels can aim to be more than an arms race in fitness and athleticism..?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Olympic's has ever been the platform for witnessing the best of women's football, and I have no issue with Sweden's chosen route for getting past a tough U.S. and Brazil on home soil either, but as certain qualities of the female game continues to move forward, I think areas in coaching have critically regressed to create the unattractive match scenarios we're all forced to see far too often right now.
Medal round referees have been appointed:
BRA-CAN: 3rd place match
R: ALBON Teodora (ROU)
AR1: IUGULESCU Petruta (ROU)
AR2: SUKENIKOVA Maria (SVK)
4th: STAUBLI Esther (SUI)
SWE GER: Final
R: CHENARD Carol Anne (CAN)
AR1: CHARBONNEAU Marie-Josee (CAN)
AR2: MORISSET Suzanne (CAN)
4O: MIRANDA Olga Marilin (PAR)
Let's not forget that the Norway teams of the 80's, 90's, and early 2000's played very direct, and used their physical nature, athleticism, size, fitness, etc. to win games, and it wasn't beautiful football. The German teams of 2003 & 2007 were far inferior to (current) France in terms of the beautiful game, but a much better team at winning championships than France because they were more physical, persistent, and a dominating defensive team (which France isn't there yet). The 2015 USWNT was very similar to Germany's 2007 team. Tough, rugged, defense, etc. But not much beautiful football.
Beautiful football just doesn't win championships in Global Women's Football. Maybe one, but not plural.
As Japan in 2011 was the exception to the rule.
The USWNT has been winning major championships (7 of them in terms of WWC & Olympics combined) in the same manner that the other women's elite teams won their major championships, with the exception of the 2011 Japan team. This is the standard (and still the standard) for winning championships in the women's game.
The United States can win ugly in just about any sport.
The other teams can't.
The United States can find a way to win and prevail on their worst day at times.
Other teams can't.
The United States doesn't have to be perfect to win, when tested, or in a championship game.
Other team often do.
The United States doesn't care about how pretty it is.
All that matters is to win.
Winning ugly is much better than losing pretty.
And until other nations understand this and adopt it, they will continue to sit far behind the United States in the total medal standings, for just about every sport, except of course men's soccer/football.
The USWNT lost to a team that essentially beat em' with a similar physical style.
Sweden does not play the beautiful game at all (never did).
Brazil does, but how many titles do they have again?
When things get "rugged" and push comes to shove, can they win an ugly game when it matters?
Germany was supposed to be so dominant last year, but I knew the USWNT's rugged style would disrupt them and take them out of their rhythm.
When Germany is not in rhythm, they struggle to win against an equal opponent in talent.
When the USWNT is not in rhythm, they are still "comfortable" to find a way to win against an equal opponent.
When France is not in rhythm, they just fold.
And when Brazil is not in rhythm, they cry and moan to the referee about every call, and they act like they are injured and create more drama than needs to be. The USWNT does not do any of that (now that Wambach is gone).
Chenard for the final. Oh brother.
It's not our fault
Ich verstehe nicht. Die Chenard kommt aus Kanada oder?
@WWC_Movement Norway has always had technically gifted players within a system of direct football... what's your point..? I love seeing France in full flow, but even their fans would have a hard time defending the idea of the current team being better than Germany's consecutive WWC wining sides. And I'm not even going near the other comparisons...
Anyway, the idea of any sports team using attractive wining styles of play can be rather divisive topic at times, but in football it's not hard to understand why Brazil's 1970 WC wining team is as important to their legacy as the losing 1982 WC side, or why for all of Italy's turgid catenaccio, we still hold them in high regard for having produced some of the most elegant footballers and entertaining matches of football history. So why can't this be the same in the women's game..?
Even with the growing realization that serious professionalism is one major hurdle even elite nations outside of north America will struggle to maintain or expand on the women's side of the sport, the idea strong wnt programs will need to regress their game in order to win in future is just sad.
I mean believing the "standard" of success is one set by a nation with one of the most sparse history's in producing great teams or players in football is hilarious; almost a funny as Greg Ryan proclaiming women weren't technically strong enough to pass the ball out from the back prior to the 2007 WC.
Surely technique remains the one factor that can cross genders and be appreciated, but if we admit the average U-17 boys side would simply crush everyone of the very best female sides on the planet, why is any female football fan taking pride in their sides ability to out muscle and out run their equally one dimensional female opponents...?
This right here is why the women's game will stay constantly patronized and stunted, if left in the hands of social justice warriors and apologists.
After QFs, I had the feeling (and I wrote it here somewhere) that Chenard or Venegas would have got the final... Since Venegas got one semifinal, and Canada didn't access to the gold match, Chenard was more or less a given.
I wonder if, in a reverse situation (Canada advancing to the final), Albon would have got to direct the gold match: would have been a first time at a final of a major tournamente for her? For sure I remember Chenard already directing a final at U-20 WWC and a semifinal at Senior WWC level (2011's Japan-Sweden, if I am not wrong). Albon, of course, has a lot of experience too at international level, but can she be compared to Chenard in terms of past assignments?
She can't compare to Chenard, wwho has been all over the last couple cups, but Albon did do three matches in the last WWC.
She refereed Germany- Netherlands in the group stage (1-1) cautioning Bartusiak.
She refereedBrasil-Australia in the round of 16 (0-1) cautioning Fabiana and Marta
And she did the USA-Germany semifinal (2-0) cautioning Maier, Krahn, Saurbrunn, and Johnson.
Before that she is most noted for the 2013 Champion's league final.
And before that a UEFA u19 final.
It now occurs to me that, if it wasn't for Sweden, Olympics 2016 could have had the same gold-match in men's and women's football alike: Brazil-Germany!
Since, in past years, women's football always had USA in the final (and men's of course never had USA ), it would have been an absolutely unique feature!
Congratulations, Sweden, you ruined the party to statistics' geeks also!
Experienced but terrible..
Officials disrupting the flow of the Women's World Cup with inconsistency
Things seemed to get derailed in the quarter-finals. I was in Montreal to watch Germany's clash with France, a game that Canadian Carol Anne Chenard took charge of. There were small things that antagonized. There was the finicky way she didn't let the game flow - bringing the ball back for a free-kick to be taken instead of allowing advantage to be played. She penalized strong, solid and textbook challenges. In a wider context, maybe that's not much. But the smaller details normally lead to patterns being formed and Chenard was a good example of that. I had seen her struggle through a group-stage game involving Brazil and Spain earlier in the competition while she had endured another difficult assignment soon after when England faced Colombia.
And that night in Montreal, the minor elements did eventually lead to something major. In the first-half, there was a
German handball in the area. The player's arm was in an un-natural position, extended away from the body. But there was no penalty call.
Inside the last ten minutes of the game, French defender Amel Majri went to close down a long-range strike and the ball hit the top of her left arm, which was purposely held down by her side. Chenard, who seemed in an excellent position, blew her whistle and pointed to the spot. Penalty for Germany. They scored, they forced extra-time and won in the shootout. But it was the first real sign that inconsistency was beginning to creep into referees' decision-making.
After the game, French coach Philippe Bergeroo said that his side could only blame themselves for the result and refused to discuss the penalty decisions. It was odd. But, inevitably the headlines were dominated by Claire Lavogez and her decisive kick being saved by Nadine Angerer. The officials survived a lashing. And they've managed to do likewise since.
I do want the Germans to win the final because Sweden is so damn boring and it stinks Portugal Euro 2016 all way of them... Altought this is the weakest German team ever, I do envy them to win a gold medal to fullify their collection.. I do like some of the German players tho. The Swedes sucks, especially Schelin, I only like Fischer and Seger on that team...
Looking forward to the Euro's next year tho where our norwegian girls can kick ass, hopefully with Graham Hansen back on the field.
You get the feeling that someone other than Germany will finally win the Euro tournament next year.
Maybe it'll be Doorway.
Yeah I think France can do it... but i thought they would win the olympics so haha i really don't know. But if our girls could revenge the loss from '13 it would've been fantastic... we need new cb tho
Rio 2016 Top Scorers:
1. Melanie Behringer
2. Christine Sincliar
3. Janine Beckie
Fair Play Award: Sweden
Olympic tournament doesn't use to give also a Best Player award?
And have this potentially see Melanie Behringer named the tournaments best player...?
Potentially, yes. (However if it wasn't for Sara Daebritz...)
One of Canada's youngsters could have a shot on MVP too and Lydia Williams perhaps?