OT: WWC (Soccer) Thread

[meyers7]

That 2.81 gpg works out to 1.4 goals per side which rounds down to 1.

But we were talking about PKs per game (<1) including both teams.

And if we're rounding 2.81 rounds up to 3 or 1.5 per team which rounds up to 2.

But actually rounding down makes my point more salient.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Have to disagree with you here. I think they could have dropped (injured) any single player and still won. Maybe Ertz. Maybe Morgan.

They played very well without Rapinoe against England.

Agree. The US had such great depth that they could have survived just about any injury. Rapinoe went out, and they replaced her with a great player in Press. Could have replaced her with another really good player in Pugh. Had Morgan gone out, then Carly Lloyd would have stepped in. Had Ertz gone out, then Horan (or Mewis) would step in - both world class players. Also Morgan Brian is a very good midfielder. All of those subs would be stars for any other team in the world.

The only place where the U.S. depth was lacking was on defense - where Krieger was perhaps adequate as the sub right back and where there was no real replacement at center back, requiring Ertz to assume that role in case of injury. And the backup goalies were not strong.

 

[Jeff H]

Time for me to give Ellis her due. I've second guessed a lot of what she's done the last few years. Just like the players, in the end she produced. She deserves her kudos

 

[Mdoggie]

Glad someone mentioned Heath as her speed on the right wing opened up the defenses time and again even if she did not pick up the assists/goals - she was a critical part of a record breaking offense.

I thought Dunn was a consistent defensive liability for the US early and wondered why she was getting the starts - she redeemed herself in the final in my eyes as she was solid.

Rose was a dynamic midfielder and her shot and when she chose to take it was great.

I was a little surprised that the silver ball went to Bronze but hadn't watched as much of England - White with her scoring and the threat she posed to defenses was the choice I would have made if the player was from that team.

I thought Rapinoe's service into the box was consistently great from run of play as well as corners and free kicks in the offensive third. And as was proved by the number of saved/missed PKs in the competition, the art of taking them and scoring is not to be dismissed lightly.

Also of note - Morgan scored five goals in the slaughter of Thailand and Lavelle two - they both scored once more in the following games. Rapinoe scored once in that game and five more times in the knockout games - twice each in the France and Spain games. And Morgan record all 3 of her assists in the Thailand game, Rapinoe had two assists in that game and 1 more in the other games. (Lavelle had zero assists.)

I thought another 'rising star' on the US team was Mewis with solid midfield play and 2 goals/three assists - she and Horan (2/2) filled the stat sheet from the midfield.

You know the game. Good job!

 

[Bigboote]

I think that those who are minimizing Rapinoe's contribution are just finding reasons not to give her credit for her play because they have a problem with either her politics or her personality.

Wow. Singing the praises of Rapinoe's teammates equals not liking her politics?

 

[meyers7]

The only place where the U.S. depth was lacking was on defense - where Krieger was perhaps adequate as the sub right back and where there was no real replacement at center back, requiring Ertz to assume that role in case of injury.

Well like you said they did have Ertz to fill in at CB. Also Davidson is good, just young. Give her a couple years and she'll be better than Ertz, Dahlkamper or Sauerbrunn.

Like the men's team LB is where we were probably the thinnest. Starting a converted winger (Dunn) and the 1st back up was moving O'hara over from RB. (Doesn't have to be that thin though, if the WNT was as "open" as they claim. Jaelene Hinkle is one of the best LBs in the NWSL.)

And if they would have brought Andi Sullivan instead of Long (why???), they would have had very good cover at DM also.

 

[Aluminny69]

Exactly, hence why you would want / and it's only fair to have your best PK taker taking the PK. (and actually there were 2.81 gpg this WC)


It's actually very fair. The reason they give PK's for fouls in the PA is to try to limit the amount of fouling and increase the amount of scoring. If they didn't give PKs for fouls in the PA, all defenders would foul if the offensive player had even a half a chance of getting a shot off.

Also Dutch player didn't make a "dangerous play" she actually kicked her.

And more also, why does the hockey player get a penalty shot for getting tripped? Hockey players can smash other players into the board and even fight without a penalty shot being awarded. Doesn't seem very fair to me.

Okay, now you are being disingenuous. 2.81 gpg equals 1.41 goals per team per game. ( or did you forget that it takes two teams to play a soccer game. ) But, great example of how to lie with statistics.

A hockey penalty shot is awarded on a trip ON A BREAKAWAY. Everything you cited was superfluous. If a soccer player is fouled while attempting a shot in the PB, then by all means award a free shot.

BTW, watch a men's soccer game closely, and to some extent a women's game. They are fouling ALL THE TIME!

 

[meyers7]

Okay, now you are being disingenuous. 2.81 gpg equals 1.41 goals per team per game. ( or did you forget that it takes two teams to play a soccer game. ) But, great example of how to lie with statistics.

We were talking about GPG, by both teams and PKs per game, by both teams. Under 1 PK per game isn't just for 1 team it's for both teams.

Keep up with the conversation.

A hockey penalty shot is awarded on a trip ON A BREAKAWAY. Everything you cited was superfluous. If a soccer player is fouled while attempting a shot in the PB, then by all means award a free shot.

If you're in the PB, you're pretty much in a position to attempt a shot. Hence why the laws are the way they are. Should they get a PK for fouling outside the PA on a shot attempt??? Don't answer that. Maybe you should just stick to stuff you understand.

BTW, watch a men's soccer game closely, and to some extent a women's game. They are fouling ALL THE TIME!

I watch many, many games very closely, they aren't fouling "all the time". Men or women's.

 

[meyers7]

Wow. Singing the praises of Rapinoe's teammates equals not liking her politics?

In some people's world it seems to be.

 

[Old Jim]

We were talking about GPG, by both teams and PKs per game, by both teams. Under 1 PK per game isn't just for 1 team it's for both teams.

Keep up with the conversation.

If you're in the PB, you're pretty much in a position to attempt a shot. Hence why the laws are the way they are. Should they get a PK for fouling outside the PA on a shot attempt??? Don't answer that. Maybe you should just stick to stuff you understand.


I watch many, many games very closely, they aren't fouling "all the time". Men or women's.

If you are inside the penalty area but outside the with of the goal with your back to the goal and moving away from the goal you are not in a position to attempt a shot on goal. It's a shame that a very good strategic game had to be, for all intent and purpose, determined by a penalty kick on that type of play.

 

[meyers7]

If you are inside the penalty area but outside the with of the goal with your back to the goal and moving away from the goal you are not in a position to attempt a shot on goal.

Maybe you don't watch a lot of soccer. Anytime you are in the PA you are in a dangerous position. Again the idea is to limit fouling in the PA (dangerous position).

It's a shame that a very good strategic game had to be, for all intent and purpose, determined by a penalty kick on that type of play.

Don't blame the laws, blame the player.

 

[Old Jim]

Maybe you don't watch a lot of soccer. Anytime you are in the PA you are in a dangerous position. Again the idea is to limit fouling in the PA (dangerous position).





Don't blame the laws, blame the player.

I guess nobody watches as much soccer as you. And you can disagree with the law if you think it is a poor law. You can disagree with it but you can't change it. By showing that video you're not trying to say Alex Morgan was anywhere near the 6 yard box are you?

 

[meyers7]

I guess nobody watches as much soccer as you.

You sound like my wife.

And you can disagree with the law if you think it is a poor law.

Doesn't make it a poor law though. It's actually a very good law for the reason I've stated. It does what it's supposed to do. You just have a poor interpretation of it.

By showing that video you're not trying to say Alex Morgan was anywhere near the 6 yard box are you?

No, I'm showing you that your statement of "If you are inside the penalty area but outside the with of the goal with your back to the goal and moving away from the goal you are not in a position to attempt a shot on goal." is wrong. Not only can you attempt a shot, you can make a shot.

 

[Old Jim]

You sound like my wife.

Doesn't make it a poor law though. It's actually a very good law for the reason I've stated. It does what it's supposed to do. You just have a poor interpretation of it.

No, I'm showing you that your statement of "If you are inside the penalty area but outside the with of the goal with your back to the goal and moving away from the goal you are not in a position to attempt a shot on goal." is wrong. Not only can you attempt a shot, you can make a shot.

Not from where she was is all I'm saying. And I think we should leave it there.

 

[UcMiami]

Rules are rules and the PK rules have been around for ever in soccer. The issue around the goal is that you have incredible congestion there - corners and offensive third free kicks generally have 10 or 11 defenders and 8+ offensive players within a very small part of the field and both offensive and defensive fouls are much more likely to occur than further away from either goal when you typically have 2 to 4 players in the same amount of space.

The issue to me is with VAR which allows for minor contact to be inflated in the eyes of referees - this as well as the tightening of 'hand ball' rules which has led to defenders playing with their arms behind their backs limiting both mobility and balance is I think increasing the advantage of the offensive players. I think VAR is on balance is a positive but I worry about it becoming too persnickety.

NB I think the ability to review pass interference calls in the NFL will also be a negative as there is much more 'incidental' contact on receivers than there is in soccer.

 

[Baroloboy]

Glad someone mentioned Heath as her speed on the right wing opened up the defenses time and again even if she did not pick up the assists/goals - she was a critical part of a record breaking offense.

I thought Dunn was a consistent defensive liability for the US early and wondered why she was getting the starts - she redeemed herself in the final in my eyes as she was solid.

Rose was a dynamic midfielder and her shot and when she chose to take it was great.

I was a little surprised that the silver ball went to Bronze but hadn't watched as much of England - White with her scoring and the threat she posed to defenses was the choice I would have made if the player was from that team.

I thought Rapinoe's service into the box was consistently great from run of play as well as corners and free kicks in the offensive third. And as was proved by the number of saved/missed PKs in the competition, the art of taking them and scoring is not to be dismissed lightly.

Also of note - Morgan scored five goals in the slaughter of Thailand and Lavelle two - they both scored once more in the following games. Rapinoe scored once in that game and five more times in the knockout games - twice each in the France and Spain games. And Morgan record all 3 of her assists in the Thailand game, Rapinoe had two assists in that game and 1 more in the other games. (Lavelle had zero assists.)

I thought another 'rising star' on the US team was Mewis with solid midfield play and 2 goals/three assists - she and Horan (2/2) filled the stat sheet from the midfield.

Insightful post. I agree with all of what you said about Heath, Rose, Megan, Mewis and Rapinoe but would emphasize David Naple's point that our defense was critical and underappreciated by many of the posters in this thread. Dahlkemper and Sauerbrunn were rock solid all tournament despite one or two uncharacteristic errors by Becky. The five back defense late in the games against France, England and the Dutch was a masterful display of shut down defense late in one goal games. Goals and assists are, of course, (as Geno would say) really really important but center backs aren't in the game to score goals. Finally, Phil Neville, Lucy Bronze's manager said she is the best soccer player in the world and if she isn't she is close to it. She dominated at both ends of the pitch in almost every one of England's games and I didn't see any other player on any team that was so dominating on both ends.

 

[stamfordhusky]

The issue to me is with VAR which allows for minor contact to be inflated in the eyes of referees - this as well as the tightening of 'hand ball' rules which has led to defenders playing with their arms behind their backs limiting both mobility and balance is I think increasing the advantage of the offensive players.

The handball rule didn't really change for the defense. They still can play with their arms at their sides and not be called for handling. It is legal if "the ball touches a player’s hand/arm which is close to their body and has not made their body unnaturally bigger."

The biggest change affected the offense when in a goal-scoring area. Now if the ball hits the arm of an attacker, leading to a goal or a goal-scoring opportunity, it is a handball, with the defense getting a free kick - even if totally accidental. Note that the rule has not changed for the defensive player. It continues to not be a handball if it is "accidental" and the player has not made themselves bigger by extending their arm out from the body. It was also clarified that it IS a handball if the arm is raised to a position above the shoulder - but that would normally have been called under the old rules as well. It was also clarified that it is not normally a violation if a ball is deflected or kicked by an opponent who is close to the player and then hits that player's arm before he/she has any chance to move it.

 

[UcMiami]

The handball rule didn't really change for the defense. They still can play with their arms at their sides and not be called for handling. It is legal if "the ball touches a player’s hand/arm which is close to their body and has not made their body unnaturally bigger."

The biggest change affected the offense when in a goal-scoring area. Now if the ball hits the arm of an attacker, leading to a goal or a goal-scoring opportunity, it is a handball, with the defense getting a free kick - even if totally accidental. Note that the rule has not changed for the defensive player. It continues to not be a handball if it is "accidental" and the player has not made themselves bigger by extending their arm out from the body. It was also clarified that it IS a handball if the arm is raised to a position above the shoulder - but that would normally have been called under the old rules as well. It was also clarified that it is not normally a violation if a ball is deflected or kicked by an opponent who is close to the player and then hits that player's arm before he/she has any chance to move it.

While that is certainly what the rule on hand ball has been (and an offensive player has almost never received the 'benefit of the doubt' on any contact) the number of defenders in normal run of play within the PB playing with hands behind their back has clearly increased and I am fairly certain they would not be doing so if they did not feel the interpretation of rules had changed against them.

 

[stamfordhusky]

My guess is that the rule - which just went into effect a few weeks ago - hasn't been explained properly to them. Or else it is so early, they don't believe what the referees are telling them. It is fairly clear that the IFAB did not intend to change anything to punish the defenders. In fact, a couple of the changes may actually have benefited them a bit.

Let's watch when the EPL and other strong leagues start play. I will be surprised if the defenders have changed their approach at all.

 

[meyers7]

While that is certainly what the rule on hand ball has been (and an offensive player has almost never received the 'benefit of the doubt' on any contact) the number of defenders in normal run of play within the PB playing with hands behind their back has clearly increased and I am fairly certain they would not be doing so if they did not feel the interpretation of rules had changed against them.

Yea, but they have been doing that for years. No real change that I've seen there.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Yea, but they have been doing that for years. No real change that I've seen there.

Some have been doing that for years - and some did in this tournament. But I watched highlight packages of a number of WWC games this morning, and many players continued to not put the arms behind the back - merely keeping the arm tight against the body, a position which assures that handling won't be called as long as they don't move it.

 

[Aluminny69]

Can anyone answer questions about how the women are paid. Who and what determines how much they are compensated? Do they get any taxpayer dollars?

 

[meyers7]

Can anyone answer questions about how the women are paid. Who and what determines how much they are compensated? Do they get any taxpayer dollars?

This article has some info about the latest CBA they just signed a couple years ago.

USWNT CBA a victory for all American women’s players, not just the best

While the USWNT and U.S. Soccer didn’t settle the equal pay debate, they did come up with a deal that helps NWSL and the next generation of players.

www.sbnation.com

I don't think they get any tax payer dollars. They are a 501c. Here is a link to some of their financial statements. You can see their 990 forms and their Audited Financial Statements.

Financial Information

www.ussoccer.com

A few interesting things in the 2018 990 form. Although there are not MNT players listed, Press, Sauerbrunn, O'Hara and Mewis are listed in the " Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees and Highest Compensated Employees" section. All made over $245,000.

Also Ellis made $291,000
While
MNT coaches
Arena - $1,249,348
Sarachan - $223,656
Klinsmann - $3,354,167 (although that might have included the by-out)

 

[RockyMTblue2]

The whole pay equity thing in basketball and soccer is a conflation of sports and ordinary business pay equity principles and is now dominated by pure gender politics - well, politics anyway. Soccer is a weak link sport in the USA, men and women and here is a fresh look at pay equity there. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...han-men/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0a7f786af798

On the world stage the men's world cup generates 100 times the revenue of the women's cup.

The economics of the WNBA and NBA have been thrashed to death.

Unfortunately some seem to believe that principles of capitalism should bend to a confused melding of notions of politics and gender equity and certain politicians now want to run with that lumpy ball. It is no way to grow a fan base.

 

[Ozimoto]

Typical political posturing. It's the US National TEAM not the US Soccer LEAGUE! So much for credibility.