Wonder if some of the girls are getting over some of all the attention. Just looking at some of their faces on an ESPY clip, seems like it. Press looked pretty over it after Megan grabbed the mic. Maybe I’m wrong. Someone earlier asked if there were two groups on this team... I’m pretty sure there is. Half that put their head down and go to work, the other half that love the attention. You have a large population that are very critical of some of their actions, and I wonder how long before it wears on some of them. But maybe I’m completely wrong... and nobody cares.
I think that's excuse-making by England. Imo, the turn of the tide was Sweden saying "right, we're up 2, no need to press for more goals."
1) I'm looking at it from the neutral's perspective. 2) more importantly, you're point misses my point. If there's a win (or a loss), someone scored, and my plan doesn't come into play.
Ok man. Actually look at the clip on ESPN. I simply pointed out what I saw. Facial expressions don’t lie. Once again, another fanboy, who lives with blinders on and criticizes others for simply being observant. I’m so over some of the people on here who feel the need to hammer someone when they state anything that’s controversial. Attempting to belittle others because they aren’t able to analyze anything on here other than in black and white. That’s the whole point of these boards!!!!!!!
Eventually, someone scored in the final. It's moot. I would venture to guess, that statistically, very few league matches (name your league) end 0-0. But, tons of teams try for that result. Taking away that possibility would not change many results at all. But, it would change the way matches are played.
The Swedes played 120 mins in the semi and had 1 day less rest. Obviously it was their plan to press high in the first 20 mins and drop back, plus Rolfo's injury. England had the skill to beat them, but they were not into it, hadn't been recovered from the loss yet.
I'm not saying England would surely win had they picked up themselves, just think they would have a better performance.
England's start to that match was one of the worst I've seen. They couldn't do anything right for 20 minutes.
Third place matches are only good if the teams let all the young players that didn't get many minutes play. It has zero value to the starters. They just finished a month long tournament and only risk an injury for a pointless match. Shoot its worse than a friendly. At least friendlies do offer teams a chance to get players together than haven't been together for awhile.
Actually in major tournaments like this in some ways the third place match is more important that the actual final. In the final, win or lose, you always go home with a metal. In the third place match only the winner gets any metal at all. While a bronze metal is no place close to as good as to have won than the gold or the sliver it is a LOT better than no metal at all. The problem with the third place match is that the press has made it unimportant. I am not real sure why the press would minimize the importance of a match as it seems to me that the press is working against their own self interest by making the match less interesting for viewers. I do not know if there is a "prize money" incentive for the third place match but if there is, and I think there may be, then that is another reason why players and coaches should be taking the match quite seriously. And lastly these are professionals playing their last match in the most important tournament there is and they have just lost a match so it seems to me that pride would drive them to try to excel before returning to their home. I understand trying to "protect" themselves from injury if the third place match was truly without meaning BUT it is not so players with any real self respect should put out at least the same level of effort they would in the final had they made it.
The Swedish starters seemed to feel the exact opposite, as did the English players who won the bronze medal in 2015. It’s just more poor sportsmanship from Neville: “Yes, congratulations for winning a meaningless game, Sweden.”
You can't blame them, many teams were like that in 3rd place match. I just think they should have sent a sub composed starting lineup because those players would probably try to prove themselves. I was surprised that Asllani still went to the field despite the neck injury in the end of the semi, Sweden obviously wanted to go home with a medal.
I believe that a team that does not enter the third place match with that exact attitude is not much of a team. If they throw a weakened lineup into the third place match they show a disrespect for themselves, their country, their fans and the tournament itself. A bronze metal is WAY better than no metal at all. The third place match is a VERY meaningful match and teams that do not treat it as such are really not worthy of fan support.
IMO it's not that a bronze isn't important, it's that you've got two teams out there that were just gutted from losing a semi. I'd rather both semi losers got a bronze and went home. Why silver or bronze anyway- a tip of the hat to the Olympics? I'm trying to imagine Ronaldo (the real one, the fat one) caring about his silver from WC'98, or Wambach caring about her silver from WWC'11. Tournaments are there for winning, and you'll always remember where you finished regardless of whether you got a medal or not.
Not always, sometimes it's better to let the young players experience the tournament and prepare for the future or just avoid injury. I admire Sweden's performance especially Asllani, but I also fully understand that the lionesses couldn't concentrate after losing the semi.
Sweden lost their semifinal as well. That certainly didn't hurt their ability to concentrate in the third place game.