Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 166

Thread: 2019 Women's World Cup

  1. #26
    Member since 7/13/2000 Hal...'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Buckeye Nation
    Posts
    1,443
    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.
    I love sleeping. It's like being dead without the commitment.

  2. #27
    Member dropforge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    1,643
    ^I saw that 13-0 score earlier and I thought somebody was pranking!!

  3. #28
    I'm here for the moosic NogbadTheBad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    5,336
    If I'd been a Thai player I'd have started taking lumps out of the USA once they got past 8.
    Ian

    I blame Wynton, what was the question?
    There are only 10 types of people in the World, those who understand binary and those that don't.

  4. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by NogbadTheBad View Post
    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.

  5. #30
    Member chalkpie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Hudson Valley, NY
    Posts
    3,399
    ouch. And the USMNT can't even qualify.
    If it isn't Krautrock, it's krap.

  6. #31
    Member dropforge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    1,643
    Watched the replay last night. The Thai team couldn't even get started!

  7. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Hal... View Post
    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...
    Maka ki ecela tehani yanke lo!

  8. #33
    Member since 7/13/2000 Hal...'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Buckeye Nation
    Posts
    1,443
    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.
    I love sleeping. It's like being dead without the commitment.

  9. #34
    Member dropforge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    1,643
    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.

  10. #35
    Member since 7/13/2000 Hal...'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Buckeye Nation
    Posts
    1,443
    Yeah, the Matildas played really well.
    I love sleeping. It's like being dead without the commitment.

  11. #36
    Member since 7/13/2000 Hal...'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Buckeye Nation
    Posts
    1,443
    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.
    I love sleeping. It's like being dead without the commitment.

  12. #37
    Looking forward to seeing the group final Sweden vs. USA on 20th !
    Check out my concert videos on my youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/broadaccent

  13. #38
    Member thedunno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    880
    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.

  14. #39
    Member dropforge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    1,643
    Who's playing today?

  15. #40
    Member thedunno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by dropforge View Post
    Who's playing today?
    Earlier today:
    Netherlands - Canada 2-1
    Cameroon - New Zealand 2-1

    Playing now:
    Usa - Sweden
    Chili - Thailand

  16. #41
    Member dropforge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    1,643
    Thai Chili!

  17. #42
    Member since 7/13/2000 Hal...'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Buckeye Nation
    Posts
    1,443
    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.
    I love sleeping. It's like being dead without the commitment.

  18. #43
    Member since 7/13/2000 Hal...'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Buckeye Nation
    Posts
    1,443
    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:

    RO16 Bracket sm.jpg

    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.
    I love sleeping. It's like being dead without the commitment.

  19. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Hal... View Post
    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.

  20. #45
    Member since 7/13/2000 Hal...'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Buckeye Nation
    Posts
    1,443
    Quote Originally Posted by interbellum View Post
    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.
    I love sleeping. It's like being dead without the commitment.

  21. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Hal... View Post
    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).

  22. #47
    Member since 7/13/2000 Hal...'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Buckeye Nation
    Posts
    1,443
    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?
    I love sleeping. It's like being dead without the commitment.

  23. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Hal... View Post
    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.

  24. #49
    I'm here for the moosic NogbadTheBad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    5,336
    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.
    Ian

    I blame Wynton, what was the question?
    There are only 10 types of people in the World, those who understand binary and those that don't.

  25. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by NogbadTheBad View Post
    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.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •