I’m not very happy that they’re scheduling games at the same time (that do not have to be scheduled at the same time). Hopefully I’ll get to catch some of Ecuador, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Brazil games, if my internet is cooperative.
Also, even with the killing the Germans did, it may actually improve the game in the long run. After all, other teams (in both men and women soccer) do “friendly matches” against higher quality teams. And I’ll just point out the German players’ men equivalent 7-1 against Brazil in a semi-final match.
Let’s be honest - it is second class, no doubt about it, in much the same way women’s tennis is of objectively inferior quality compared with men’s tennis, simply due to the differences in physical strength between men and women (and of course the much greater and long-standing professionalism of the men’s game, in the case of football, which increases the gap further). As a result, there is much less interest in women’s football than men’s and it would therefore be foolish of FIFA to organise the two tournaments in the same way.
Having said that, it is also correct that playing on artificial turf is not related to this, it is simply a pragmatic decision. Many Russian professional clubs have artificial pitches, for obvious reasons.
Playing against a team that is another level up can certainly be an education. in this case the Ivorians were inept from start to finish and Germany didn’t even need to be that good to beat them 10-0. I’m not sure being multiple levels below your opponents is a good basis for learning anything.
A different beast altogether I think. Brazil had one, very bad day and Germany were brutal. But it raises a fair point. Let’s see how the Ivorians do in the rest of the tournament. Perhaps they just had a very, very bad day at the office but if they do become the whipping boys then my feeling is that they shouldn’t be there in the first place.
I think the difference between men and women’s soccer is much wider than the difference between men and women’s tennis. This is simply because women’s tennis as a professional and participation sport is as mature (or close to) men’s tennis whereas women’s soccer is light years behind men’s soccer in terms of maturity.
Of course there’s been an acceleration in terms of the quality of women’s soccer over the last few years.
I think artificial turf is best avoided though - everyone who’s played a bit would be familiar with an artificial surface, but it changes the game too much to be used in high level competition.
It’s also worth pointing out that in 1982 Hungary beat El Salvador 10-1 in the 1st round of the World Cup, so these kind of margins are not completely alien to the men’s competition either.
It is possible… But I see two things… Either increase the number of teams, with the possibility that for some of those teams, the gap between them and the powerhouses will be bigger than in the case of men’s, or keep the number of teams small and limit the opportunity some of the teams have to increase participation and recognition of the game back to the home country.
Perhaps some of you may underestimate the thing that, for some people (most of all the team players and those related to it), making it to the World Cup (or Olympics) is recognition enough and source of pride/enjoyment, and an incentive/something to take home to increase sport recognition. Even if they know they’ll most likely be beaten to pulp, the fact that they were recognized to go to such level is big. I say this not necessarily for football, but as an extension of other sports.
Nigeria look to be very well coached, earning a rightful draw against Sweden.
It’s hard to tell much from opening matches, especially since Norway and Germany both showed signs of being a bit jittery, but it seems obvious that Thailand and Côte d’Ivoire won’t be challenging for much. Despite the slaughter–and I only watched the first half–I wasn’t actually all that impressed by Germany. So much sloppiness that a better side could have exploited, and too many overheated finishes. Much of that might have been opening game nerves. Certainly they had an abundance of chances nonetheless, and Côte d’Ivoire were a mess.
Is this one of those “I don’t really get soccer” things?
The US led in time of possession, had more shots, and more shots on goal. Hell, Hope only had one more save than the Aussie keeper, so make that even and it’s still US 3, AUS 2.
Are the yellows a concern for the US? Do they follow those players for the rest of the WC or are they cleared at some point (assuming no more yellows)?
A solid performance from Hope Solo, who saved our bacon during some jittery moments in the first half. The second half, though, was a decisive performance from Team USA, and a well-deserved three points to take the top spot in Group D. Rapinoe was outstanding.
Also, in the Cameroon vs Ecuador game, both are in their debut in this World Cup. Cameroon did much better, and had more experienced players. But it does show that increasing the number of teams may be positive, giving the teams a chance to play against teams different than what they may be accustomed in the regional tournaments (other than Olympics).
I don’t agree. Far more play was in Australia’s half than that of the U.S. We also dominated possession and had the edge of shots taken.
Having a great goal keeper is a widely-agreed upon required component for a championship-quality team.
Agreed. Solo made the saves she was expected to make. The lone Australia goal was due to poor positional awareness of our central defenders–something that can be improved, one would think.
Single yellow cards will be cancelled after the quarter-finals.
Agreed, I more meant it as an indictment of the US finishing quality (and to some degree the Australian keeper) - I think Solo saves at least one of the second half goals, maybe both. The warmup matches were a harbinger of this, but I’m still not used to a women’s soccer world where the US margin is even that narrow.
