There is a misconception that because an effective attack comes through a given player or position that it is always the "fault" of the player(s) covering that position. The fact is that ALL defenses have vulnerabilities and that well designed defenses do little but control what and where the vulnerabilities are. What we don't and can't know is weather Abby was actually set up to be that vulnerability for the US recognizing that she was able to handle most of the problems that presented. If you force, by design or accident, all attacks through one point it make the attacks predictable and you may give up goals you give up fewer than if the effective attacks are unpredictable. If you design a defense to force attacks through one point and you wait until the opponents are committed to that attack then you reduce the chances that goals will result. Sometimes you pick the obvious weak point to expose and sometimes you make it so your actual strongest point is the only one available, either way the fact that goals get scored through the perceived weakness does not mean that the weakness is either real or unexpected. Teams will give up goals and often fault does not equal or relate to blame. I do not think that the US had any defensive weakness but they did have to allow something to happen given the quality they faced. The choice as to what to expose may have been less than ideal, or it may have been perfect, BUT it worked. After all the US won the World Cup.
There are still many states where gays are not a protected class from discrimination including harassment.
you put a lot of thought into it, but she simply didn't track her forward in the box on the goals. When it's the leading scoring of the tournament, as White was, you simply can't loose her in the box. She also didn't step in time on a few occasions (also in the box)during the finals and got beat badly. Aly Wagner called her out on those.
We do NOT know what her instructions were. She might well have expected that there was coverage coming from the weak side. We do not know and neither does Aly Wagner in this WC she is nothing more than a commentator with no special knowledge. You might be right about "fault" but you also might be wrong and some other player that was supposed to cover for that particular "mistake" might be at fault. The fact that we won the World Cup makes all debate about "fault" for the few goals we conceded meaningless. Based on results the team was about as close to "perfect" as could be expected and second guessing is just disingenuous. the evaluation process should reset at this point but it should NOT be based on this WWC unless we know EXACTLY what the defensive instructions and plans were. Baring injury or some great resurgence or drop in form by some player I will be VERY comfortable with this lineup continuing through the Olympics.
So I’ll say this again....how is Hinkle not also making a stand? She’s the first player in ANY SPORT to my knowledge to not take part because of her religious beliefs. I’m not arguing for or against this, but how the hell is this not the exact same thing as to what half of the people on this thread so gloriously praise Rapinoe for? You all think Rapinoe is making this hard stand (about whatever - the president, unity, hair color), and at least we can pinpoint an exact topic with Hinkle!
This is a very strange attitude. Ends-justify-the-means thinking is inimical to learning. Wow. I don't know of any group of professional athletes who would have this as an attitude.
I don’t believe in using Google. Interesting. In a world where we have to wear kids gloves for anything (especially in corporate world), I thought every type of citizen was protected. Learn something new everyday. Thanks!
You are welcome. The lack of legal protections for gays in many states is one of the reasons your least favorite US player is so loud!
We don't even have to change sports or teams. There's a former USWNT member who stopped accepting call-ups because she didn't believe she should play on Sundays: Aleisha Cramer. (Background: at the beginning of 2002, she seemed like the next big thing debuting for the team in 1998 at the age of 16, and as far as you can project out a year and a half, she seemed like she had a shot at making a run for the 2003 WWC roster. She continued to finish her career at BYU, but she decided not to pursue the sport professionally because of playing on Sundays.)
She’s actually not my least favorite player. That would belong to Harris. She’s absolute trash in my book. I fully understand, acknowledge, and even agree most of what Rapinoe is passionate about, with the exception of one thing. And when you have someone close to you whose in law enforcement, it opens your eyes to things. Things the typical citizen doesn’t see or takes for granted.
Mormon.... I’m sure getting started on having lots of kiddos probably killed the soccer more than anything...
You have responded directly to my posts in which I also stated this. Seems like you're just trolling.
It's not about tactics, it's about fundamentals. Which is also what Aly was talking about. Abby was often not touch tight on crosses coming in on the box.
She is not the first person to make that choice. Alicia Kramer, an excellent midfielder in the early '00s, retired from the USWNT to pursue her life as a Mormon. Not everyone puts playing for the USWNT as their first priority in life. Fortunately, that is a liberty each of them has.
The point I have been making is that none of them had the right to force me to hold those signs, march or agree with them. They had the right to try to persuade me and others. The collective super-majority was empowered to decide how to uphold their rights. It is not a quick process. It reflects the fact that the super-majority also consists of individuals and they are also part of the sovereign. Thus, they also each get a say. The process of persuasion derives from the reality that no disgruntled minority gets to shove its way down the super-majority's throat. It gets to try to persuade. And the fact that more expansive views of rights have prevailed over time should be seen as an affirmation of the fundamental basic decency of the super-majority of the people in this country.
I don't think democracies work exactly this way. If oppressed minorities ("disgruntled" sounds as quite judgemental) should wait for super-majorities to graciously concede them their civil rights, they could wait forever. That's part of the reason why Constitutions exist: to state that there are things the majorities shouldn't have a say about, and civil rights are among those things. Constitutions somehow set the "rules of the game", the boundaries democratic dynamics have to play within: "All men are created equal" is not something even the largest majority can object to. Edit: for records, I am aware that "all men are created equal" is part of the Declaration of Independence and not of the Constitution of the USA: it's the general principle of civil rights being protected by most Constitutions I am referring to.
That's not exactly right. We have the court system and the Supreme Court to weigh and correct the excesses of the politicians and President. Thus, it's not entirely the good will of the "super majority" that gives rights to individuals and groups. It's the legal system., interpreting what is said in the Constitution.
You realize these mechanisms are small-r republican brakes on the excesses of majority rule (which straight-up democracy is), right? To protect minorities (of ALL kinds) from the majority is not something a straight democracy is very good at. So at best, "democracies" are all some form of hybrid. Democracy by itself and unchecked is no bueno.