2019 Women's World Cup

[Hal...]

OMG. That was a mauling. The US set a WC record for most goals scored in a game and largest differential. 13 - 0.

Morgan - 5 goals, tying Michelle Akers' record for the US
Lavelle - 2
Mewis - 2
Horan - 1
Rapinoe - 1
Pugh - 1
Lloyd - 1

Unbelievable.

[dropforge]

^I saw that 13-0 score earlier and I thought somebody was pranking!!

[NogbadTheBad]

If I'd been a Thai player I'd have started taking lumps out of the USA once they got past 8.

[per anporth]

Good win for England against the auld enemy the other day. Scotland looked quite good and we got the benefit of a dodgy VAR penalty.

Yes, a very disappointing decision, for two reasons, looking forwards:

1. It's clear the the whole "hands/arms in unnatural position" criterion has been worked out by people who have little or no experience of actually playing; when you go to make a defensive tackle like Docherty did, you have to have your arms at least slightly away from your body, simply for balance. The alternative is the defender falls over with her/his arms behind their back, or they simply don't attempt to make a tackle/block. But in the latter case, then far too much of an advantage is being given to the attacker.

2. There will be a risk that attackers look to hit the arms of defenders deliberately.

It's a very poor rule change, the wrong solution to the wrong problem.

[chalkpie]

ouch. And the USMNT can't even qualify.

[dropforge]

Watched the replay last night. The Thai team couldn't even get started!

[Sturgeon's Lawyer]

BTW, does anyone know what the song in this commercial is?

https://d3npuic909260z.cloudfront.ne...7/oZNw_360.mp4

I think it sounds like an early Who song... but not quite.

I don't know it but it's definitely not the 'Oo. Which is a pity, because they actually did write a Coke commercial once and Coke turned it down...

[Hal...]

Japan 2 vs Scotland 1
Jamaica 0 vs Italy 5

So, Japan looks like Japan again. In their first match against Argentina, which ended in a tie, they did not look like what I've come to expect from them. I thought maybe with Homare Sawa (Japan's greatest player), Miyama, et al, not part of the Japanese team, they were in a rebuilding phase. They played well against Scotland and if they continue to improve, they could be a contender. And if they make it to the Round of 16, which they have, they'll play either the winner of Group E (if they finish 2nd), either Canada or Netherlands, or the winner of Group B (if they finish 3rd), Germany. If I were Japan and had to play the winner of Group E or B, I'd want it to be the winner of Group E.

Italy. Wow. After their 2-1 win over Australia, I thought it was a combination of them playing well and the Matildas not playing up to their usual standard. Then, Australia came back from a 2-0 deficit to beat Brazil. Yes, they looked better in this game but not that much better. And now that I've seen Italy play their 2nd game, I now know they're the real deal, a real contender and I expect them to win Group C.

England vs Argentina, today at 3pm EDT. I don't know what to think of Argentina but England is a good team. They didn't play real well against Scotland. Even tho they won 2-1, I expected more. I don't know, maybe Scotland played beyond themselves against England, but after seeing Scotland's game against Japan, it almost feels as if England isn't as good as I figured they'd be. But, we'll see.

[dropforge]

The Aussie team really brought it against Brazil. I was surprised. That was a close one, with what looked like a 51/49 split on possession, IIRC. But Australia won it.

[Hal...]

Yeah, the Matildas played really well.

[Hal...]

England defeated Argentina, 1-0, and the Netherlands defeated Cameroon, 3-1.

So far, these are the teams that have qualified for the Round of 16:
France
Germany
Italy
England
Netherlands

Japan and Canada are more than likely qualified given their points but they have some more games to play.

We'll see after tomorrow if the US qualifies.

Currently, here are the 3rd place standings:

Australia 3 pts
China 3 pts
Nigeria 3 pts
Argentina 1 pt
New Zealand 0 pts
Chile 0

The significance of 3rd place is that four 3rd place finishers in Group play also qualify for the Round of 16.

[Smörgåsbord]

Looking forward to seeing the group final Sweden vs. USA on 20th !

[thedunno]

Happy that the Netherlands managed to get the nr 1 spot in the group. This way they avoid the USA in the next round.

Next opponent Japan. Hard but not impossible.

[dropforge]

Who's playing today?

[thedunno]

Who's playing today?

Earlier today:
Netherlands - Canada 2-1
Cameroon - New Zealand 2-1

Playing now:
Usa - Sweden
Chili - Thailand

[dropforge]

Thai Chili!

[Hal...]

Some recent matches:

For some stupid reason, they scheduled two matches at the same time all this week so I missed almost half of them.

ITA 0 v BRA 1. Did not see that coming. Both played well. ITA just couldn't score.

JAM 1 v AUS 4. I missed this live because I wanted to watch ITA/BRA. And even tho I knew the final score, I watched the replay. An excellent game for Sam Kerr, who scored 4 goals all by her lonesome! AUS are in good form.

JAP 0 v ENG 2. Okay, so England is as good as I'd hoped they'd be. Gotta love Lucy Bronze; the woman's tough. England is a good team with a good midfield and they have some depth. Ellen White scored twice and Stanway has looked really good the past two games. Don't know why Jill Scott keeps starting, tho, other than maybe because of her height which is a big advantage on set pieces.

NED 2 v CAN 1. This was a really good game. I was pulling for Canada but Netherlands is tougher than I originally thought. Miedema is a beast (she scored twice against Cameroon). They have quite a few players who can score. Another advantage they seem to have is their size; a lot of tall players who are targets for headers on set pieces. I see them as the Dark Horse of this WC.

SWE 0 v USA 2. This was also a good game but like their game against Chile, the US didn't look as strong in the second half, scoring all their goals in the first.

[Hal...]

Here are the teams who qualified for the Round of 16 (ranked in order for each group):

Group A France Norway Nigeria	Group B Germany Spain China	Group C Italy Australia Brazil
Group D England Japan	Group E Netherlands Canada Cameroon	Group F USA Sweden

It should be pointed out that in Group C, all three of those teams finished at 6 points because ITA beat AUS, AUS beat BRA, and BRA beat ITA (they all beat Jamaica, mon). The ranking was based on goal differential which put ITA at #1. AUS and BRA, however, were still tied and so total goals scored was used as the tie breaker. But that's a pretty tight group. The question is how well each will play their next opponent. I think Italy will have the best chance of making it to the quarterfinals (of those three); Brazil, the worst.

Kickoff times for the Round of 16 (all times Eastern Daylight Time; GMT: add 5):

Saturday

Germany v Nigeria - 22 Jun - 11:30
Norway v Australia - 22 Jun - 15:00

Sunday

England v Cameroon - 23 Jun - 11:30
France v Brazil - 23 Jun - 15:00

Monday

Spain v USA - 24 Jun - 12:00
Sweden v Canada - 24 Jun - 15:00

Tuesday

Italy v China - 25 Jun - 12:00
Netherlands v Japan - 25 Jun - 15:00

Germany, England, & the US should get through to the quarterfinals and their games probably won't be that close. I don't know how well the Netherlands will handle Japan's defense but I expect NED to win. Plus, they have a huge height advantage.

The rest of the matches, tho, should be really good. And I suspect the three in bold are gonna be battles.

Here's the bracket, so far:

Attachment 13166

As you can see, the toughest part of this bracket is assuming the US advances they'll be playing the winner of FRA/BRA. Yowza.

[interbellum]

SWE 0 v USA 2. This was also a good game but like their game against Chile, the US didn't look as strong in the second half, scoring all their goals in the first.

Second goal was scored in the beginning of the second half and was clearly offside!

The reason for scheduling two matches at the same time is for not giving any team the benefit for know what the other teams have done in their closing game.

[Hal...]

Second goal was scored in the beginning of the second half and was clearly offside!

You're right. It was 5 minutes into the second half. They still didn't look as good in the second half, tho, imo. Or, maybe, Sweden got a handle on the US.

As for the 2nd goal, the rules analyst on TV - herself a referee - explained why it was good. Interestingly, the commentator Aly Wagner, a former USWNT midfielder, disagreed and thought the goal should have been cancelled. I speculate the main reason the goal stood was because it was ruled an own goal on Sweden's Jonna Andersson (the ball bounced off her foot).

The reason for scheduling two matches at the same time is for not giving any team the benefit for know what the other teams have done in their closing game.

I thought of that yesterday and promptly forgot.

[interbellum]

As for the 2nd goal, the rules analyst on TV - herself a referee - explained why it was good. Interestingly, the commentator Aly Wagner, a former USWNT midfielder, disagreed and thought the goal should have been cancelled. I speculate the main reason the goal stood was because it was ruled an own goal on Sweden's Jonna Andersson (the ball bounced off her foot).

The moment the ball was played the midfielder was going for the ball, so she was objectionable offside. It doesn't matter if she touched the ball. Everything after that doesn't matter, own goal or not. Aly Wagner was right.

I guess Sweden did their best the second half, but it wasn't enough; sometimes you have to be lucky the ball falls right, like the first US-goal.
And the US could have scored the second half too, if they would have been a bit more precise (and maybe relaxed).

[Hal...]

I think this is what the rules analyst based her reason on: there's been a rules change with VAR, so they're waiting to call offside. I've seen that numerous times in other games. I think if Heath (or Lloyd) had scored, they would have called it but since it was technically an own goal they let the goal stand. Does that make sense?

[interbellum]

I think this is what the rules analyst based her reason on: there's been a rules change with VAR, so they're waiting to call offside. I've seen that numerous times in other games. I think if Heath (or Lloyd) had scored, they would have called it but since it was technically an own goal they let the goal stand. Does that make sense?

For me that doesn't make sense. As far as I know it doesn't matter what happens in the game after the offside-situation. Even if the defender would have had a bad moment in her head and took the ball in her hands and thrown it into her own goal - we've seen worse things happening on a footballfield - , the first foul (the offside-situation) counts.

[NogbadTheBad]

The only way she would not have been offside was if she didn't interfere with play but as the Swedish player had to react to hef presence that wasnt the case.

[interbellum]

The only way she would not have been offside was if she didn't interfere with play but as the Swedish player had to react to hef presence that wasnt the case.

Indeed.
I think that if wouldn't have been a wrong decision the tv-direction wouldn't have repeated the actual action (so not the goal) so often.