Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'USA Women: News and Analysis' started by McSkillz, Jun 4, 2019.
Not as long as you keep making absurd claims even after they've been debunked.
Oy, you two. Get a room.
It can easily argued that Lloyd ( and keeping her sharp) is integral moving forward in the tournament, and needs limited time. This was more planning for next matches where the US might need her 2nd half if things aren’t going swimmingly.
Just fyi: there's some posters showing up in this thread who only show up when there's something to criticize the women for. There are also posters who are showing up only for the WWC. In other words, there are quite a few that are not regular posters.
On another note, I saw a tweet that now I can't find, but I loved it. So just know this isn't mine:
"You literally dared them to shine. What did you expect?"
Lloyd is the usual sub for the last 45-60 minutes of play; she has been all year. Ellis also plans her subs in advance. This is not new information.
I also think it helped all the attackers get into their groove at the start of the tournament....that's exactly what you want to do.
It’s been said but I feel it bears repeating, that in a tournament with goal differential as the tiebreaker, you’re never just playing the team on the field with you at that time. So continuing to score, and celebrate those scores, in the first game with two more to play, is never a bad thing or even classless.
It was more respectful to treat Thailand like a legit opponent that deserved to be there than to play glorified keep away for 40 min, which would have made it easier for Sweden to make up the GD.
This post pretty much explains why the GD explanation was always pretty much bullshit: Post #21
Sorry, but that's just ignorant. The difference between France and Germany is huge. I mean, you have to beat everybody to win it, everybody or whomever just beat them. But you'd like to play them in a preferred order. and France first is not really it. You'll expend more energy and be more likely to accumulate cards against France...
Finishing first in the group = France in the QF. Finishing 2nd (I believe) puts them on the opposite side of the knockout from France, so a Final meeting if all goes to form.
So beating the living shit out of Thailand potentially sets up an earlier matchup with the other tournament favorite.
So which is it - that playing France, England or Germany in R16 is "literally" the same thing? Or is it better to put off playing France until the final, if possible? Can't have it both ways.
Honestly I don't think the USWNT cares to try to finish in one place or the other for the purposes of playing an easier bracket in the knockout round. They can't control what happens in the other groups - they simply want to win their group.
You'll have to ask the author of the post what he meant by that.
Umm...then why point to GD as if it were some sort of unassailable argument?
Since the post you quoted was in response to taosjohn's argument about energy expenditure, you might want to read it with that point in mind.
But you used it to claim that goal difference doesn't matter because it doesn't matter where the US finishes in their group because it doesn't matter who they play next. Then you claimed their goal difference did in fact matter because it gives them a better chance of winning the group and facing France early. Can't have it both ways.
It's not unassailable. Just gives the US a leg up going into the last game against Sweden if they are tied on 6 points and lead on GD. Then a draw wins the group, whereas Sweden would need to win the game to win the group.
I WAS RESPONDING SPECIFICALLY TO THE ENERGY ARGUMENT. If they were worried about facing France too early, GD is a terrible, disingenuous argument.
There is a possibility that, oddly, finishing 2nd gives them a "better" path. The question is, do they need to/want to win the group? If so, then great! But some people have raised the possibility that not winning the group would be preferable, in which case, GD is a terrible excuse.
But further even to that, the top 4 3rd place finishers advance. The group stage only culls 6 teams. Now if the US is all-conquering, it almost doesn't matter what they do from here, they're advancing.
Acting like GD is some holy grail when you're clearly a top-two team in a 24-team tournament that only eliminates 6 teams after the group stage is almost so funny as to be painful. Nothing very interesting is going to come down to GD for the US, and it can be argued (by people defending their actions!) that deliberately finishing 2nd might be better for their "energy".
Yup. Just win, baby. The only successful strategy in sports.
This isn't complicated. They are trying to win every game. Period. And they will score as much as they can. Period.
And if they win every game, GD is extra-irrelevant.
I mistyped here; I meant the usual sub to come in at the 45' or 60' for the last 30-45 minutes. Just to be precise.
I figured you meant 45'-60'.
And if they win two of three, they advance guaranteed in F1 or F2, with arguably F2 allowing more "energy".
Eh? There you go overthinking it again.
It's very simple: Win.
Then GD doesn't factor in.
Actually it is not; it is highly relevant to how Sweden chooses to play in the third match. If they can win the group with a draw they will almost certainly play for the draw; if the US wins the group with a draw, they will likely come out of their shell a bit.
And the immediate problem for the US is, and has been since the Olympics, how do we beat a bunkering Sweden? So we'd like to have GD before that game.
You keep assuming the intention to win assumes you will. It doesn't.
Sadly, being in France I actually couldn't watch the game. So all I can take away from it, after reading a lot of what's been posted is that here's what the US women communicated:
Hey, you think we're a bunch of polite, humble, appropriately behaved girls? We aren't. We're a bunch of bad-ass soccer players who love to play, score goals, and celebrate.