I think US has the ability to be patient and build attack when England defend, because when we calm down and made build up plays we actually created chances. However we seems have the instinct to play very very direct and hope England to lose the ball and we can make 2nd attack. Now I feel many Euro teams are very good under pressure. If US do not upgrade the tactic, this hustle play become less and less effective. I’m really look forward to the Spain game to see if we have changes.
if that was what happened, it was a glaring error, as there is NO situation under current Laws in which a DB can be contested. From Law 8: Procedure • The ball is dropped for the defending team goalkeeper in their penalty area if, when play was stopped: • the ball was in the penalty area or • the last touch of the ball was in the penalty area • In all other cases, the referee drops the ball for one player of the team that last touched the ball at the position where it last touched a player, an outside agent or, as outlined in Law 9.1, a match official • All other players (of both teams) must remain at least 4 m (4.5 yds) from the ball until it is in play The ball is in play when it touches the ground.
If it is merely a high foot, with no contact, then it is playing in a dangerous manner and an indirect kick. However if you boot the opposing player in the face, then it is careless/reckless play and a foul warranting a direct kick (or PK in the box) and likely a card.
I'll be interested to watch England when they don't play in England. The reffing was gennnnnnnerous to them during the Euros.
No one got booted in the face, though Bronze (or whomever it was) did a great job of playacting. England's women have become the most divey team in football. Ellen White was the worst, but they're still, all of them, with their 11 hands in the air, horrible.
Glad someone quoted @TitoTata before he edited out his comment on Sophia Smith. I mean (and I'm struggling to put this diplomatically), what a chucklehead move to say something negative about a player and then edit it out within 10 minutes after she scores a goal. Just own up to it when you've been beclowned. Honestly.
I know you didn't mean anything by it but after the Sally Yates report, it makes me a little sick now when old dudes are talking about the looks of young female soccer players.
It is quite normal for fans of teams that lose in an unevenly refed match to blame the ref or blame the other team for diving or blame the other team for playing too physical or blame just about anybody other than the team that the fan supports. But much of the time it is just, as it is in this case, that the supported team got their butts handed to them. We were beaten solidly and thoroughly. Yes the match was close and the refereeing was poor, but there was just as much clumsy and poor play by the US that did not get called as there was the other way. The referee in this match was horrible. I know in was not her first high level match but she called it like it was. One thing I did not like at all was the commentators not calling BS on a lot of the refs calls and decisions. All they did was discuss the calls ad nauseam and gush over any good touch by any US player. But I thought the ref reached her best when she called a left butt cheek a hand.
Why? I am not in any position of power over them and I am to old to be much interested. I just did not like the hair style she used to have. While I do understand the sensitivities of sexism I do not think that what I said was at all inappropriate. I coached girls and young women for almost 35 years and many of them actually got upset if they changed hairstyles or something else about their appearance and I did not say something they would often sulk for most of the match or practice. Of course I was always so much older than the girls that I guess they considered me more grandfather than threat. Even back then it was hard to handle girls trust and remain outside their "friend" zone. I was considered "safe" but I still made sure that I was NEVER alone with any one of them and that I was always upfront and honest. I have been VERY upset at the abuses that have been reported. I worked VERY hard to keep all relationships above board and even one pervert can make all that work mean nothing. Coaches, particularly of young women, are in a particular position of trust and when some pervert violates that trust it sets everything back a long ways.
VAR 3 England 2 USA 1 I hope the VAR official actually had a better view of the goal that was called back than we got on TV, because I don't see any way you can tell an offside from that angle. That said, now that they've actually played a good team, you can see how this team falls well short of our World Cup winners in a number of areas. Without Ertz and Sam Mewis in the midfield, there's not even a pretense of possession and no bite at all. Sullivan is not a strong #6. Horan and Lavelle need someone help them and win the ball so they can attack. The left side defensively was really bad, obviously, Megan should not be starting anymore, but the first 2 left side fullbacks were not very good and kept letting players get behind them. If Cook can't clear the ball on the first goal, she shouldn't start on this team. And she was not very good after that either. I thought Smith, Rodman, and Girma had pretty decent games. Yes, I understand we were missing some players, but so was England.
At one point it actually looked, very briefly, like Ertz was back. There was a lofted ball into the box and a blond head rose above the others and flashed forward and a blond pony tail almost cracked like a whip. But the result was only to just outside the box. If that had been Ertz with the header she might have injured the other goalkeeper. The fact is I am not at all sure Ertz will be back with the US. She will be missed but I can understand her wanting to spend all time with her baby. She may not like the idea of 20-30 aunts helping her to raise her kid(s). Yes it worked well for Fawcett but not everyone wants or needs that level of "help."
Thank you, McSkillz. As a certified "old dude" (age 75), I completely agree with you. "Old dudes" should refrain here and everywhere from commenting on the looks of young (or not young) female soccer players. Whether "old dudes" realize this or not, whether "old dudes" intend this or not, such comments contribute to the pervasive sexism and sexual harassment of women and girls both inside and outside the sports world. It needs to stop.
Referee determined there was contact, which changes it from an indirect for playing in a dangerous manner to a direct free kick for kicking an opponent.
I agree with all of this. Cook was exposed. I thought Coffey played herself off the roster. She is too small and not impactful as a 6. She made Sullivan look valuable. Girma is showing herself as our best centerback. Rodman earned more minutes with her play. I wonder a bit why he is so infatuated with Horan (90 minutes nearly every game). I feel like I am missing something with her. Horan and Rose are not a great pair for 90 minutes. Rose is a 10 and we need a box to box midfielder to play with her. Horan doesn't have the pace or defensive desire to play the 8. We are playing two 10s with an average 6. Our midfield was beaten handily today.
I think you are taking it too far. Equating @FanOfFutbol's innocent remark about a player's hairstyle to "sexual harassment" or claiming that it contributes to it is a so patent exaggeration that it does more harm than good to the cause that it wants to defend. I don't agree that any observation about the look of a player is by itself equal to objectifying her as a woman or to not taking her seriously as a player. Implying that there is something sexually depraved in commenting the hairstyle of a woman sounds to me like such an overstatement that reminds me of Victorian-age-like moralism.
It would of been the current injured Sam Mewis starting over Horan. Cook was only an sub at PSG when first given the call & capped. A little unlucky, but Fox early injury exit & the inexperienced replacement, Mace, obviously at fault in England’s 2nd goal. This might be the first time where the US didn’t have an ‘deep’ team(depth, in my book one of the main reasons we’ve won the last couple of WC’s). A lot was Vlatko’s fault; he could of called an replacement for Pugh/could of scouted our vast pool of over 30K college players, instead picked the 17 year old that looked like she was way out of her high school league/decided to switch winger Smith to center, yet didn’t give any playing time to the only natural striker we had left(Hatch)/brought back Dunn(who’s game performance was called “rusty” by an couple of posters)/subbed Brunn in even though we needed more offense upfront/had an very lethargic, high press, going, It brought us one goal, but should of been more(the way England gamble’d with its back passing in trying to draw out US defense). This, probably in part cuz he gave the team the rest of the day off from practice the day & hour after the Yates report came out other Vlatko concerns(especially since your an NWSL fan); not scouting born & raised Cali, Ordenez(11 goals) who only joined the Mexico NT a few months ago another Twitter story just came out of the wood work; Beth Balcer(7 goals) wrote once on Twitter that Vlatko made her cry by yelling at her too harsh during camp practice last year. So Vlatko black listing her now? another stat; we committed only 5 fouls vs theirs 10(should be reversed since they had way more possession). They committed several tactical fouls meant to slow down our run n gun style(tactical fouls seems to be NOT part of our game book). I’ve noticed that the Euro’s style has become very physical over the last few years, perhaps more than we can handle. Vlatko’s finally has an stronger schedule for us than the usual tomato cans with up coming Spain & Germany btw…..17 of Spain’s best players quit the NT due some kinda rebellion over their coach, but yesterday they still were able to manage an tie with Sweden. So we can’t make the usual (we’re not at full strength) excuses if we tie or loose to their B team come this Tuesday
I also am not a Horan fan. She is always slow and looked even slower this game. Rose seemed out of it yesterday too. Rodman played hard but sometimes needs to play more with her teammates instead of trying too hard to do it all on her own. Our two goals were both nice and both good. England got one on a defensive screw up and one on a bad call. They are a good team but certainly not better than our best 11. I think Smith, Pugh and Cat would have lit them up.
What happened to Hatch? I honestly believe there would have been much better dynamics upfront if it was her, smith, and Rodman. I'm not sure about her ability to track back on defense but surely not worst than Rapinoe.
Equally normal is to exagerrate or flat out mistate what someone says on an internet chatboard, so that you can disagree with them. Show me where I blamed the loss on the ref.
I am sorry. That comment about the ref was not aimed at you but rather at the more general comments that have appeared here and elsewhere. I, probably, should have just commented without a quote but I did quote you so I apologize.
It may seem innocent on your part and you mean nothing by it but to comment on a female athlete’s appearance continues to perpetuate the culture of women being judged and assessed based on their physical appearance and attractiveness. It is an unnecessary focus and comment - please help to change the culture and have more self awareness by focusing your comments on athleticism and skills and performance.
An innocent and in-good-faith comment about an hairstyle doesn't do that, even if addressed to an athlete. If he introduced an unnecessary focus you are introducing an unnecessary Spanish Inquisition. I insist that hitting on such harmless comments does more harm than good: it blurs the edges and makes everything look the same, as if anything was an unforgivable crime. Painting something so innocuous as if the man saying that is an active accomplice to Paul Riley is doing a favour to Paul Riley. I don't think that making a comment on the hairstyle of an athlete makes me part of the same "sistemic injustice" as Paul Riley: it's not the same ballpark, it's not even the same game. I don't feel responsible for what Paul Riley did and I won't give him the alibi of claiming to be part of a general scheme with me: he will respond of what he did individually. I don't respond for him, because I don't do the things that he does, even should I happen to comment on the hairstyle of an athlete. Let the innocent comments about hairstyle in peace and process the people who do illegal and shameful acts, instead of picking at people who don't have any malicious intent and who in fact aren't doing anything wrong, unless you look at it with an unreasonable distorting lens.
??? I thought Pinoe was excellent at it yesterday, including a goal-saving deflection of a cross. If anything, I thought she may have been overconcerned with helping out at the expense of her offense. I wonder if people have noticed that without VAR, we likely win that game 3-2? I'm totally in favor of VAR at all times and in all places-- but without it yesterday, Rodman's goal stands, and so does that horrendous PK call-- and that would most probably have given us a bogus win. Anybody want that? Nowadays they pay the other guys too most places-- and that is what we have hoped for for decades. We played a great and complete team at their place, and, unusually, what could have happened both did and did not. No whiners.