I think it would be fun to see both Boston and Denver in the playoffs. And gotta say, if Boston develops into a cohesive team this year (which it looks like is happening), they are offensively scary.
looks like NWSL’s first MAGA stadium, lol, but the league needs to a more substantial fan base if it wants to grow & afford those new million dollar salaries. That’s why NWSL games are featured on Paramount+ which is otherwise best known for all its Taylor Sheridan produced/pro Republican mini series. One game this season in the WSL featured zero starting English players, so don’t think it’s gotten that bad in the NWSL, but who knows what the future holds
https://www.talkinsoccer.com/gotham-dreams-of-back-to-back/ Gotham dreams of back to back Justin Horneker May 19, 2026 Some analysis of the NWSL games since the return from April International break and a little look into the Concacaf Champions Cup.
Moultrie and Turner out of tonight's game in Portland against Bay FC. https://bsky.app/profile/tayvincent6.bsky.social/post/3mmavrsjifc2b
A couple things: 1 - While, by nature of supporting WoSo, we tend to lean left, please refrain from bringing in politics. This is a reminder to myself as well. 2 - Among soccer fans, I think it is equally known for the men's Champion's League coverage and other soccer matches. [/quote]One game this season in the WSL featured zero starting English players, so don’t think it’s gotten that bad in the NWSL, but who knows what the future holds[/QUOTE] I don't think NWSL will get to that point soon, if ever. Mostly because we have such a massive pool of talent that is developed, among other things.
I hadn't heard anything, so it's good to know she's training and hasn't had a set back so far. It's been about 11 months, so may be after the June break they'll be more news.
I think Hanks and Morgan Weaver will be back after the break. Julie Dufour is another Thorn who has been out, I think she will be out a little longer than Hanks and Weaver. When they are back, I assume they will be eased into games gradually.
Can't find where we were talking about the St. George red card, but from the NWSL reddit forum. Not usually a fan of knocking players, but found this somewhat funny. https://www.reddit.com/r/NWSL/comments/1teidjn/bsg_showing_her_playful_side_tonight/ Can't wait for her TED Talk: "Breaking the glass ceiling one leg at a time"
As I said in the original thread about this. (It is in the Brazil thread in the USA women's soccer forum) I do not like her style of play, she plays rough. However if I had to choose I would much rather she played with me that against me. Once she learns to hide her aggression better she will be an asset to any team she plays for. But she will always come with the potential to get sent off. I do not know if a decision has been made by the discipline committee yet but I would be VERY surprised if she does not get an additional three match, or maybe five, suspension and, maybe a fine if such is available. The foul was actually very bad BUT it was also somewhat accidental. She just made no effort to pull out or reduce the force. She is like the female answer to Carlos Ruiz. Or in other words St. George ain't no saint. Except, maybe, if we actually think the inquisition's excesses were saint like. She is also one of the few players that could get a retaliation from the likes of Rodman once she learns to hide her aggression better. She has a huge ability to get under the skin of others. I wonder what a confrontation between her and an in form Birgit Prinz would look like. It could turn the green grass red.
It's her style, and I don't think she'll change. It was pointed out in that Reddit thread that she has 3 different seasons of 2 red cards (and I think 12 overall). And she already has 2 red cards this season, and we are barely a quarter way through. I'd rather play against her as there is physical, and there is over the top. St. Georges is the latter. She's been suspended for a further 2 matches.
I did not know this was her second red this season. That makes the additional two matches pretty light punishment as repeat offenders in sports as well as law are generally treated more harshly, unless they are president. I actually really wish that they (soccer officials) would enforce the laws much more tightly. If you watch closely in every match there are many foul throw ins, both from the wrong place and lifting a leg from the ground. Also the referees spend too much time verbally warning players. They should just let the play proceed and call the fouls as they happen. The players know the laws and they should not be given any help as to what they can get away with and if fouls like holding were called on corners then players would quickly adjust their play and the matches would be better. If the players did not adjust then any hal way smart coach would quit playing them as they would be too much of a liability because of cards and PKs. If the fouls would be called as tightly for the so called adults as they are for the youths then it would not be so hard to teach kids the laws. Also decent should be called MUCH more often. Arguing with the referee should be punished right away. No second or third or fourth chances, just card the fools that argue and. if a referee is surrounded after a call every player in the scrum should be carded. (This happens much more in the men's game than the women's but it should be punished right away) BTW: I also think that fighting in hockey should be an automatic suspension. It serves no purpose. Like arguing with refs in soccer.
It was their third match, I think, in which she got two yellows. I think it mattered that this was a straight red as opposed to the prior two yellows. I would assume the league has a policy regarding this. That said, BSG seems to be an outlier at this point. But there seems to be an increase in the physical play, and I think an examination of this area of league rules should take place. As a former official, this is always very difficult, and there are a number of things that occur that merit different levels of decision. A couple of examples: 1 - (U14 league) Had a player that was known to be very physical, but I had not yet officiated that player. I had been warned about him, but didn't want to bring in any bias against him. Watched him for the first bit to see how he played. He committed a hard foul, but not over the top, and I called it. A short time later, he went in hard, but I judged it fair. As I ran past him following the ball, gave him a verbal "calm down" type comment. A short time later, he committed another hard foul, and this time I pulled him aside to let him know the next foul of the same nature would be a yellow. I did this as he was a fairly good player, though others on the field were better. But some shied away from him because of his aggression. A short time later, before half time, he committed another foul and I gave him a yellow card. I explained to him why, and it completely changed his game. His participation in the match became minimized. That was his choice, but it was caused by my decision. (The next time I saw him, he was less aggressive.) But without the conversations, he would not have understood what I saw, and would not have known how to modify his game. 2 - (College club match) Men's teams playing, moderately rivals in the general university sporting sense. But there was a lot of skill on the pitch, and looked like some might even have been full college team level. It was a chippy match and there were plenty of fouls I called, but at that point, no yellows. I had several verbal warnings to players to keep things under control, and generally they did so after talking to them. But at one point, I heard a scuffle behind me, turned around ignoring the play and watched for a few seconds to see...wait for the punch to be thrown. It was, stopped play and red card. One of my ARs got my attention and told me a punch had been thrown prior, so a second red card. As this had been bubbling, but under control until that point, spoke to the captains to get their players in order. Game calmed down after that, still chippy, but no red cards (don't remember if I gave any yellows). The point is that a conversation with the players is often a good thing. Lets them know what I am seeing, and allows them to get themselves under control. Yes, sometimes they don't work, and sometimes other methods are necessary. I remember several occasions where a match was starting to bubble over, warned captains/coaches at the half, didn't work, and spend the first bit of the second half calling a very close match. Usually those things work. Not always, but officials have to make a judgement call in the moment, as to an actual foul, the severity of the foul, the prior situation, if a player was committing said foul under control, and even the knowledge of the teams or players. Beyond that, if I was officiating a player like BSG, I would officiate her differently than if I was officiating a player such as G Thompson or Wesley. Or a better comparison would be Geatino, who can be aggressive, but not to the level of BSG. Additionally, Boston have Carabali who can be aggressive, while Denver have no player to the level of Gaetino's aggression. To me, this is relative. A player is fouled, and disagrees, fine. Throw the arm up, or tell official their blind and walk away, that is fine. Some players are like that, more expressive or more talkative. And, again, it may need a conversation to both explain what the official saw, and allow the player a few seconds to calm down. And when official does this, it also shows they are in control of the match.
I strongly disagree with the very idea that any foul should be left unpunished. If referees actually called the match the way the laws are written then there would be much less argument and the match would flow better. Good player would adjust and bad ones would no longer even get on the field. This very much applies to al sports and should be the norm rather than the exception. But, like traveling in basketball, the referees prefer to influence the game with not calling things rather than influencing the game by calling fouls. Also where a foul happens should have no impact on it getting called. The phrase "that would be called if it happened in the center circle but it is not worth a PK" should be forbidden to referees vocabulary. Referees that use that poor excuse to avoid calling PKs do the game no good and actually are a large reason that newcomers get turned off to the sport. If the laws are applied differently based on location on the field it makes the game very hard to understand for the people we most need to attract. But the nature of many referees is the same as the nature of politicians. Their aim is power and screw the actual rules/laws to gain what they most desire. Not all referees and not all politicians are evil or poor or simply power hungry but enough are to make me really want them out of the game.
What do you mean by "unpunished?" Do you mean stopping play and calling a foul? If so, how do you deal with the advantage rule? Also, there are lots of "fouls" that are in a the grey area. For example, is each and every jersey tug a foul? How you differentiate between somebody tugging to slow down a player and somebody getting their hand caught fighting for the ball? And what if both players are tugging the jersey - who gets the foul? What would determine what is fair? What if a player slides in to get the ball, does not, but is judged by the CR to have gotten the ball. Or the reverse? It's been a while since I officiated, but when taught, the goal was to allow the game to be played and not be the center of attention. Call each and every foul, and the CR becomes the focus. But don't call enough, and the CR becomes the focus. It's a balance, but the CR is not supposed to be the focus - the players are. Even the best players are imperfect. They are not robots, they are imperfect and make mistakes. At the professional officiating level, that terminology is not used - it's a pundit term. And the idea behind it goes back to the CR not being the center of attention. Are some calls missed? Sure. Are some calls wrong? Sure. Getting each and every call correct is very, very difficult. I would even say it is impossible. I very, very, very strongly object to this, broadly. Yes, there are bad officials. And we remember bad officials. But we also remember the very best officials. Most officials are exactly where they should be - forgotten. They go out and do their job with integrity and get most calls correct. Every match there are judgements, and in every match somebody will say that an official got something wrong.
Obviously we feel differently about referees and what they should and should not call and we will simply have to accept that there are others that agree and/or disagree with either or even both of us. I am not criticizing referees about right or wrong calls I just want the fouls they see called all the time and not be based on where the fouls occur. If the laws were made to be enforced differently in different parts of the field then they would have been written that way. BTW: I do think every jersey pull or hair pull or hold should be called. Those really have no place in soccer.
I've been watching Seattle vs Boston and I noticed that Boston is playing like an expansion team. That is they seem to have come back to earth and their no loss streak appears to be ending at home. It is 2-0 in favor of Seattle at the 73rd minute and Boston has not, yet, even looked likely to score. I am a bit disappointed as I expected better from Boston but Seattle seems to have their number. Boston has had many many bad passes and even direct giveaways all over the field and their ability to maintain any attack is nonexistent. Also they are playing this badly at home. The first Seattle goal came from a really stupid handball in the box that was 100% avoidable if the player used any level of smarts. It seems like the last six matches have used up all their decent play and Boston are folding badly. Of course this is soccer (football) and most anything can and often does happen but I feel this match will end up 4 or 5 - 0 unless Seattle takes their foot off the gas. BTW: The announcers on Prime are worse than the worst I have heard on ESPN, Victory or CBS.
What a disappointing match. We definately lost it versus Utah winning. Two defensive errors led to both Utah goals.
And Denver seem to lack some fire. They seemed very willing, in a lot of cases, just to allow Utah to do as they pleased. It was disappointing even to me as a pretty much a neutral. Has anybody noticed just how weird a lot of English spelling is? Like "neutral" which has a superfluous "e". Years, many many years, ago one of my favorite English teachers told the class that English was the hardest language to learn to spell as there are so many exceptions to the "rules." Like the rule "I before e except after c or when sounded like A as in neighbor or weigh. Which is violated in this post by "weird" BTW: I believe that Dutch and Finnish and Norwegian are much harder.
Well, this can also depend on the fact that many more English words than people use to suspect actually come from Greek or from Latin, so they carry the weigh (how can I not use "weigh" here? ) or their original etymology and pronunciation. Neutral, for instance, comes from the Latin neuter, where uter means "both" and ne is the negation particle, so ne-uter literally means "none of both" and consequently neutral means "not belonging to any of two sides". It's Latin, that's why it sounds so weird in English.
That's why Dutch and Frisian are so like Old English. polyglottistlanguageacademy.com https://www.polyglottistlanguageacademy.com › language-culture-travelling-blog › 2025 › 10 › 8 › how-similar-is-dutch-to-english-surprising-linguistic-overlaps How Similar Is Dutch to English? Surprising Linguistic Overlaps ... 8 okt 2025In this article, we'll explore exactly how Dutch and English are related, why they have so much in common, and how you can use these overlaps to your advantage when learning Dutch. Reddit https://www.reddit.com › r › asklinguistics › comments › 130mw3v › i_once_heard_dutch_described_as_what_english I once heard Dutch described as "what English would have ... - Reddit On the whole Dutch (syntax, vocab, phonology), is closer to German than it is to English, but German is more different again (from English). The language you're looking for that sounds most similar to Pre-Norman English is Frisian.
All this talk of languages and polyglots had me thinking of a famous Japanese guy who speaks like 16 languages and does funny videos on Youtube, it's worth a listen too. Here is a link to the channel, especially for @blissett just in case he has not heard of him before: https://www.youtube.com/@KazuLanguages
Missed the first 15 minutes since I was thinking 6:30 and not 4:30... Apart from that, Denver was a different team from the past two matches, and very much apart form most of the season. Tactically, Denver has been very much a team that plays the ball down the wings and gets the ball inside in the last third, or even deeper. This works well with the speed of Ryan and Oke on the right, and Sonis on the left. And it was very effective versus both Houston and Orlando. But versus Utah, there was more play though the middle and a lot of cut into the middle rather than cut out wide. The players looked confused and unsure of where to go and what to do - in particular Flint looked lost. Tactically, this played away from the strength of the team. Additionally, one of the strengths has been the high press, particularly by Oke. She is just so good at attacking players up field and harassing them when they have the ball causing turnovers. And her speed is a great benefit here. Going back to the match v. Bay FC, Oke's speed completely neutralized Kundananji, and that is an easy way to do that. But, versus Utah, she was more withdrawn and played deeper. It seems the purpose was to try and neutralize Lacasse, but it only gave more space elsewhere to Utah rather than cause Denver problems. Beyond that, Denver just looked unsure of themselves. As mentioned, bad touches by Gaetino and Oke caused the goals, but they were not the only ones with bad touches. Kurtz did several times, as did both Lynch and Flint. Oke often seemed not to know what to do when on the ball, and the goal near the end of the first half was how Denver played v. Houston and v. Orlando, but was uncharacteristic for the match v. Utah. (A note, Oke's penalty was quite uncharacteristic for her this season so far). Overall, Denver has been successful when taking the emphasis of the play, and playing to the strengths. Against Utah, that was not present, though got better in the 2nd half. One positive about the match was that Tanaka didn't do much in the match. That is pretty much what Denver has been able to do - minimize the best player of the opponent. But both Tejada and Talacios really stepped up and made Tanaka's absense meaningless. This match also showed a couple of other issues with Denver. First, Kossler is not quick enough to play with Ryan, Oke, and Sonis. She also lacks the positional awareness of other players, both on her team and the opponents. There are times she should be crashing the net but doesn't. There are times she should cut back, but doesn't. I noticed this mostly versus Orlando, but the rest of the team was on point. Versus Utah, this hurt the team. Second, while Cushing is generally good tactically, his substitutions are wanting. Thomas should have come on around the 70th minute, or sooner. Regan also should have come on earlier. And finally, I'm wondering when Gaetino will get her yellow card accumulation suspension. It will happen, just wondering when. Overall, it was an uncharacteristic match from Denver, though I will say that earlier in the season they would have given up another goal late. Heaps and her leadership cannot arrive soon enough.