January 24 and 27- Paraguay and Chile

@lhs25 There is a therad dedicated to youth teams.

https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/the-kids-are-alright-2026-ynt-thread.2137578/

Better to post youth stuff there so things don't get lost.

 

As you live relative to tornado country, I'm assuming you know how much better tornado forecasting/prediction has gotten in the past 5-10 years, let alone the past 30 years.

I also have some understanding to improvements as my former neighbor worked for NCAR and on weather modeling. Former, as she moved because her kiddo went off to university.

 

Sorry, misread your post.

 

Emma Hayes pre-match. It might be just me, but the audio is clear, yet the video stuttered some.



Thoughts on last year, and this camp, and on developing players. As expected, already talking about 2031.

Rodman is going to be captain on game 1 (was told this at the start of camp). Two starting line-ups, and everybody will play. (I assume she means outfield players.)

Bugg is sick, and was expected to start game 1, but is penciled in to game 2.

Question on Rodman being the most experienced and leadership. Also mentioned both Hutton and Sams as being in leadership roles as well.

Her plan for the year is what it takes to qualify for the WC (about 8 minutes in - she gets kind of detailed). Mentioned that 17 players should be at SheBelieves not currently in camp, and this camp will help figure out the others. And also the "what ifs" (all of the possibilities). Notes that the SheBelieves team is the plan, but nothing is set in stone up to the WC team.

Accidentally announces an upcoming match v. Japan. (It will be announced tomorrow.)

Question on Rodman's contract - sees that contract as good for Rodman, but also a milestone for the women's game.

Question on Press, and the impact the last gen had. Of course, she's talking about building on past successes.

Interesting that Hayes said she is not just the coach, but also fan, of the US team.

Question on Kang's investments in WoSo. Talks about overall investment, of all kinds and at all levels.

Final question on the Rodman contact - was there a burden, and how has she responded.

 

Sams and Moultrie: Wow, those are some serious glasses Moultrie is wearing.



Moultrie is the 4th most capped player in this camp. Man, such youngsters.

Sams - question on how many cats she has.

Moultrie did World Sevens broadcasting? That's cool!

Positives on Oke (A OK).

What was it like at the World Sevens and what made it exciting.

Moultrie on Turner being at the Nats - they have known each other since age 9, fun playing with each other.

Moultrie on taking FKs is fun.

What value does this camp have?

Moultrie asked what it is liked to work under Hayes - talks about the balance between detail and freedom.

Interesting note, didn't know that Moultrie has a bit of lisp. Was great that it doesn't effect her and her broadcasting (to bring the men's game in, Harry Kane of Bayern, formerly Tottenham, also has a lisp and he used to get a lot of shit about it from opposing fans). Moultrie also seems so comfortable talking to the media. They were an interesting pair and Sams was so calm whereas Moultrie had so much energy.

"Yeah" counter - 7

 

There is a difference between being able to issue a warning, and people listening to the warning and behaving responsibly. Looking at all those videos out there of people filming things like tornadoes, I'm miffed at how stupid people are in relation to the potential danger. And one of the things I have understood for a long time, is that things like tornado warnings are sent out in terms of possibilities, not absolutes. Because things like the science of air masses and fluid dynamics are very, very complicated and the people who study them are learning something more detailed every year. As an example, do you know that we really need to think of ocean current in 3 dimensions rather than 2? That's novel to most, but makes things far more complicated to understand when one gets into the science of ocean currents.

As for predictability, that is also based on percentages. Things like "a 70% chance of rain" means that in a specifically designated area, there is a 7 in 10 chance of rain. For rain falling in one spot in that specific area. Not everywhere. So if it rains half a mile from you, it met the criteria of having rained even if it didn't rain on you.

But some of that stuff is also understanding how local patterns work. For myself, if I use the local weather to predict, say snow, I know that the point of reference is at the local muni airport. And while it is in my designated area, I also know that since I am backed up fairly close the mountains, my snowfall with be different than predicted (usually higher). But it can be quite difficult for them to predict with great accuracy for me because of the nuances of how the wind moves off the mountains. But, they are very accurate in terms of relative snow (or rain) and relative temperature. But when I lived in Milwaukee, and Memphis before, those predictions were more accurate and more stable.

But a lot of that is down to human behavior. For example, remember the tornado that killed several people in a warehouse in Kentucky a 2 or 3 years ago (I think Kentucky, might have been Indiana or Illinois or Tennessee - that general area). The people who were killed where killed because their boss/es didn't let them move to safety locations. But the notifications went out in time. And that is the problem - and has been noted by researchers dealing with the warnings - human behavior is some cases are lax because the ability to predict has improved so much. So, we don't necessarily hear about the people who were saved, but we do hear about the people who were killed. And it usually amounts to people not heeding warnings or the unexpected.

If you had been able to talk to my former neighbor, I would hope she would have been able to change your mind.
And this is the problem with science like that - it is based on probabilities. I used to live in CA, and there was the common argument/fear about "The Big One" - meaning major earthquake - rocking Southern California. And it was stated to be a "Hundred year earthquake." The problem is that people hear that and thought it meant once every hundred years. The "hundred year earthquake" (or flood, or snow storm, or hurricane, etc) is a statistical measurement, not a literal one. And there are several people in those areas who have acknowledged that the use of that terminology is misleading, and while it was introduced with best intents, it has become problematic.

Again, this is the difference between what science says and what human behavior decides. Take all those hurricane warnings. You get some guy who has lived through 10 or 15 hurricane warnings, and refuses to believe the current one. Even though this hurricane is worse than prior hurricanes. And even though the models suggest that it has a 90% likelihood of striking land where he is located. Only that is where the eye lands, not where the hurricane entire lands. So, this guy, based on passed experience, ignores the warnings, and decides to stay. And he dies. Human behavior versus science.

Another way to look at it is like this (the old story):
Man who lives on the bank of a river hears a report that the river will flood, but says "I go to church, I pray every day, God will save me."
The river floods, and guy's house is partly underwater. A guy in a boat comes by and says: "Get in this boat, I'll take you to safety." But our man says, "I go to church, I pray every day, God will save me." So, the guy in the boat leaves.
The river floods more forcing our man onto the roof. A helicopter arrives and throws down a ladder. "Grab on, I'll take you to safety." The man yells back, "I go to church, I pray every day, God will save me." So the helicopter moves on.
The next thing our man knows is he's standing at the pearly gates looking at St. Peter. "I don't understand, I go to church, I pray every day, why didn't God will save me."
St. Peter says: "I sent you a weather report, a boat, and a helicopter. What more did you want?"
I think that sums up human behavior.

 

Staring lineup

 

Excited to see Claudia Martinez in person...apart from the US newbies. And sister Thompson.

 

Greetings jackdoggy

 

I thought so live, but on the replay was less convinced.

 

that was cheeky from Hudson.

 

Moultrie and Rodnman really don't look like they are used to playing together.