Women’s World Cup

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe Ashley Sanchez got zero minutes of play. She is an exciting midfielder to watch as she can dribble in tight spaces and make assists. Instead why did over the hill Rapinoe get so many minutes that should have gone to younger players. She played in the U-17 and U-20 world cups. What is the point of developing players and then not giving them experience? So many Hispanic girls play soccer and come from families patio are about the game yet don’t seem to make it through the pay to play system.

The coach trusted Rapinoe and other older players like Morgan. Coaches get like this. It’s a form of tunnel vision. This player does what I want but is a step slow. This results in the player getting beat or not delivering…by just a little bit. The coach think oh she will get it next time she was just unlucky but the player is over the hill.

All of them let him down. Watch the shoot out. He made late subs in overtime. Those subs took the shots from the mark/pks and missed. They showed him before the subs shooting. You can see him thinking…this is why I brought you, this will quiet all the criticism and they missed.

[Anonymous]

Rapinoe = Cristiano Ronaldo.

The specter of public sh*tshow from media enablers pushed coaches to play them in roles they never should have, and neither player had the grace to take a step back and do what was best for the team. At least the Portugal coach eventually snapped out of it.

Two of the most selfish players ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe Ashley Sanchez got zero minutes of play. She is an exciting midfielder to watch as she can dribble in tight spaces and make assists. Instead why did over the hill Rapinoe get so many minutes that should have gone to younger players. She played in the U-17 and U-20 world cups. What is the point of developing players and then not giving them experience? So many Hispanic girls play soccer and come from families patio are about the game yet don’t seem to make it through the pay to play system.

Far fewer Hispanics girl play for the machismo reason. I have sons that play for a club where the boys teams are almost all Hispanic—yet the girls’ teams are all white. Those boys have sisters. They come to the games. They don’t play sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL, so happy with this result!! After years of puffing themselves up, demanding “pay equity” and all the rest… just a bunch of LOSERS!!

Adios ya pink-haired freak.

Incel you're the freak. Head back to mom's basement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe Ashley Sanchez got zero minutes of play. She is an exciting midfielder to watch as she can dribble in tight spaces and make assists. Instead why did over the hill Rapinoe get so many minutes that should have gone to younger players. She played in the U-17 and U-20 world cups. What is the point of developing players and then not giving them experience? So many Hispanic girls play soccer and come from families patio are about the game yet don’t seem to make it through the pay to play system.

Far fewer Hispanics girl play for the machismo reason. I have sons that play for a club where the boys teams are almost all Hispanic—yet the girls’ teams are all white. Those boys have sisters. They come to the games. They don’t play sports.

I’m Hispanic American and this is 100% true. This is still going on even 2nd generation of kids are still being told that. They are told that “los niños jugan football”. This is such sad that they think that way. If I ever have kids they will be taught they are both equal.

[Anonymous]

Let’s see what US Soccer does with the coach. Vlatko Andonovski did about the same as Gregg Berhalter. They kept Berhalter bet they keep Andonovski.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL, so happy with this result!! After years of puffing themselves up, demanding “pay equity” and all the rest… just a bunch of LOSERS!!

Adios ya pink-haired freak.

Last I saw, she was green-haired.

Got the pay equity though, so will be well paid off the US advancing to the group stage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL, so happy with this result!! After years of puffing themselves up, demanding “pay equity” and all the rest… just a bunch of LOSERS!!

Adios ya pink-haired freak.

My, you really hate America and all that it stands for, don’t you? Maybe, I don’t know, leave?

Star forward Megan Rapinoe, who will retire after this World Cup, said in 2019 that she would “never put my hand over my heart” and “probably never sing the national anthem again.”

It's not hard to see why people are annoyed with this team when they say and do stuff like this, but refuse to step away and let other deserving players play because they are in it for the money and attention.

Talk about hating America...

Rapinoe reminds me of Brittney Griner who now stands for the national anthem after previously advocating for it to not be played or performed at WNBA games. Rapinoe seemed not to even care that the US lost. What’s up with smiley after missing her penalty kick. She has already won world cups, she got her endorsements, so seemed fine going home.

She comes across as a horrible person completely devoid of a soul. I feel sorry for her teammates who have to live in her shadow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe Ashley Sanchez got zero minutes of play. She is an exciting midfielder to watch as she can dribble in tight spaces and make assists. Instead why did over the hill Rapinoe get so many minutes that should have gone to younger players. She played in the U-17 and U-20 world cups. What is the point of developing players and then not giving them experience? So many Hispanic girls play soccer and come from families patio are about the game yet don’t seem to make it through the pay to play system.

The coach trusted Rapinoe and other older players like Morgan. Coaches get like this. It’s a form of tunnel vision. This player does what I want but is a step slow. This results in the player getting beat or not delivering…by just a little bit. The coach think oh she will get it next time she was just unlucky but the player is over the hill.

All of them let him down. Watch the shoot out. He made late subs in overtime. Those subs took the shots from the mark/pks and missed. They showed him before the subs shooting. You can see him thinking…this is why I brought you, this will quiet all the criticism and they missed.

Scouting is a big problem, club/team/national team selecting based on who gets along with whom regardless of hard work, parent deep involvement,, leagues making big $with their tournaments and showcase, etc.

[Anonymous]

Shots on goal or conceded don’t mean much. Soccer rankings are notoriously bad. The US in no way dominated this game. US quality of play was poor all tournament. Most US chances were off of set pieces, and Sweden defends those well, so it’s unsurprising that it was 0-0 game that went to the proverbial coin toss that is PKs.

It's hard to believe you are posting in a soccer-specific forum because you clearly have no understanding of the game or did not watch it. The US, after not playing well in the group stage, absolutely dominated in today's game and was the more dangerous team by any measure. Their best chances were in the run of play, not off set pieces. Rodman and Williams toyed with the left defender and there was a clear mismatch there that the US exploited. Sweden not scoring was not a surprise, as they rarely penetrated the box and had only a single shot 85 minutes into the game. The US had the great majority of possession and shots, and absent the superb performance by Sweden's keeper the US would have finished this game easily in regulation time. As much as the US got lucky against Portugal, Sweden was VERY lucky today.

That said, winning requires scoring, and the US has to finish chances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Shots on goal or conceded don’t mean much. Soccer rankings are notoriously bad. The US in no way dominated this game. US quality of play was poor all tournament. Most US chances were off of set pieces, and Sweden defends those well, so it’s unsurprising that it was 0-0 game that went to the proverbial coin toss that is PKs.

It's hard to believe you are posting in a soccer-specific forum because you clearly have no understanding of the game or did not watch it. The US, after not playing well in the group stage, absolutely dominated in today's game and was the more dangerous team by any measure. Their best chances were in the run of play, not off set pieces. Rodman and Williams toyed with the left defender and there was a clear mismatch there that the US exploited. Sweden not scoring was not a surprise, as they rarely penetrated the box and had only a single shot 85 minutes into the game. The US had the great majority of possession and shots, and absent the superb performance by Sweden's keeper the US would have finished this game easily in regulation time. As much as the US got lucky against Portugal, Sweden was VERY lucky today.

That said, winning requires scoring, and the US has to finish chances.

Yeah, you’re wrong. You don’t understand what a quality chance is and how quality, technical players hit the ball when they are in a position to score. You watch too much crap US Soccer. Watch futbol and it may start to make sense to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL, so happy with this result!! After years of puffing themselves up, demanding “pay equity” and all the rest… just a bunch of LOSERS!!

Adios ya pink-haired freak.

Either you didn’t watch the game or you’re color blind. Dingbat either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is 4:45am here on the west coast. That last pk sure looked like a save to me, even with the goal line technology.

Andonovski absolutely deserves to be fired for that Pino sub, and I’m sure will be.

I’m pretty sure Pino is my least liked athlete ever. I guess it’s not her fault she was subbed in, but her first touch was emblematic of why she has no place on this team. Her service was absolute garbage. I see better play on U14 ECNL teams.

Then of course there is her blown pk. Again, to be fair, 2 others did the same thing, and I love O’Hara.

But that game, those decisions, and the outcome is so unfair to the vast majority of the US team that deserved to win.

Everyone knew continuing to choose politics over performance would bite this team. After her benching post-Portugal, I thought Andonovski’s sense of self-preservation might prevail. Obviously not.

Essentially US soccer from the youth level to the National team. We are a political favorite feeder system.

I don’t think your statement is accurate about US Soccer. However, if you are correct, that political favorite feeder system produced a team that, today at least, dominated the #3 ranked team - 11 shots on goal for US v 1 for Sweden.

Over 4 games in this WC, US only conceded 2 shots on goals. In 4 games. Yet they only won 1 of those 4 games. That is a little unlucky, even for a team that was otherwise second best for large stretches of the Netherlands and Portugal games.

And imagine what we could have accomplished without politics and favoritism all the way from youth leagues.

Maybe win more World Cups than any other women’s national team? Oh wait . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Shots on goal or conceded don’t mean much. Soccer rankings are notoriously bad. The US in no way dominated this game. US quality of play was poor all tournament. Most US chances were off of set pieces, and Sweden defends those well, so it’s unsurprising that it was 0-0 game that went to the proverbial coin toss that is PKs.

It's hard to believe you are posting in a soccer-specific forum because you clearly have no understanding of the game or did not watch it. The US, after not playing well in the group stage, absolutely dominated in today's game and was the more dangerous team by any measure. Their best chances were in the run of play, not off set pieces. Rodman and Williams toyed with the left defender and there was a clear mismatch there that the US exploited. Sweden not scoring was not a surprise, as they rarely penetrated the box and had only a single shot 85 minutes into the game. The US had the great majority of possession and shots, and absent the superb performance by Sweden's keeper the US would have finished this game easily in regulation time. As much as the US got lucky against Portugal, Sweden was VERY lucky today.

That said, winning requires scoring, and the US has to finish chances.

Yeah, you’re wrong. You don’t understand what a quality chance is and how quality, technical players hit the ball when they are in a position to score. You watch too much crap US Soccer. Watch futbol and it may start to make sense to you.

DP - I kinda agree with PP. I feel like the US played much better and their best to date in the tournament. However, if you look at how MANY chances they had to score and didn't, you know...

Also, when you actually take a look at how many takeaways Sweden had and passes that were not connecting among players, that says a lot too. World cup level can't be played so carelessly. I think that they demonstrated they possessed more technique than I actually thought they had, but I don't know that this game showcased that they were an A level team. I definitely didn't think Sweden was better, just that the US wasn't that much better than Sweden.

I don't think they could have beaten Japan but even if they did, on a good day, the Dutch would absolutely defeat US I think.

I cannot believe that 3 US players missed PKs. I get hitting a goal post and if the keeper saved the shot but, an air ball???!!!!! How do you actually completely miss the net??!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Shots on goal or conceded don’t mean much. Soccer rankings are notoriously bad. The US in no way dominated this game. US quality of play was poor all tournament. Most US chances were off of set pieces, and Sweden defends those well, so it’s unsurprising that it was 0-0 game that went to the proverbial coin toss that is PKs.

It's hard to believe you are posting in a soccer-specific forum because you clearly have no understanding of the game or did not watch it. The US, after not playing well in the group stage, absolutely dominated in today's game and was the more dangerous team by any measure. Their best chances were in the run of play, not off set pieces. Rodman and Williams toyed with the left defender and there was a clear mismatch there that the US exploited. Sweden not scoring was not a surprise, as they rarely penetrated the box and had only a single shot 85 minutes into the game. The US had the great majority of possession and shots, and absent the superb performance by Sweden's keeper the US would have finished this game easily in regulation time. As much as the US got lucky against Portugal, Sweden was VERY lucky today.

That said, winning requires scoring, and the US has to finish chances.

Yeah, you’re wrong. You don’t understand what a quality chance is and how quality, technical players hit the ball when they are in a position to score. You watch too much crap US Soccer. Watch futbol and it may start to make sense to you.

DP - I kinda agree with PP. I feel like the US played much better and their best to date in the tournament. However, if you look at how MANY chances they had to score and didn't, you know...

Also, when you actually take a look at how many takeaways Sweden had and passes that were not connecting among players, that says a lot too. World cup level can't be played so carelessly. I think that they demonstrated they possessed more technique than I actually thought they had, but I don't know that this game showcased that they were an A level team. I definitely didn't think Sweden was better, just that the US wasn't that much better than Sweden.

I don't think they could have beaten Japan but even if they did, on a good day, the Dutch would absolutely defeat US I think.

I cannot believe that 3 US players missed PKs. I get hitting a goal post and if the keeper saved the shot but, an air ball???!!!!! How do you actually completely miss the net??!

Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying: I’m NOT saying Sweden played better than the US. I’m saying that the US didn’t “absolutely dominate” Sweden, which is what PP said and I responded to. It’s not often - maybe never - when a team “absolutely dominates” a game and it’s 0-0 after 120 minutes.