Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The USWNT has turned into a bunch a Karen’s running around with a ball.

Glad they are out.

I used to enjoy them a few years ago; but they just seem to be angry people all the time.

Look in the mirror pal. You seem like the angry one. What is it about this team that triggers you when there are plenty of other examples of “angry people” that don’t trigger you?

What don’t the sing the national anthem?

I really cannot keep track with what they are protesting all the time.

Now that they are clearly just an average soccer team maybe they relax and focus on scoring more goals than their opponents.

Interesting insights here about the US coach.

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/page/uswntreport0808/andonovski-go-uswnt-coach-bad-world-cup
"There are a lot of reasons the USWNT crashed out of the Women's World Cup in the round of 16 against Sweden. The team's best players were injured. The team was caught between two generations. The rest of the world has caught up. Those things are all true. But Andonovski was also not the right choice for a job that is arguably the most challenging in women's soccer, and the warning signs of how this World Cup would go were evident after the 2021 Olympics. Had U.S. Soccer officials heeded those signs, the USWNT might very well still be in this World Cup, preparing for a quarterfinal."
"Back in 2021, the cracks revealed themselves immediately. In the opening match of the Olympics, Sweden humiliated the USWNT 3-0. The Americans looked lost, disjointed and confused -- it was a remarkable about-face from a team that comprised entirely players who had just won a World Cup in 2019 in dominant fashion."

And then this stunner. Rule no.1 in any team sport. Never pick a coach that the players lobby for, unless that player is Messi

"There has been a sense that the players, some of them having worked with Andonovski in the NWSL, were in favor of him being their next coach after the exit of Jill Ellis. After the knockout Sunday, Andonovski even called the players his "friends." But the degree to which the players' opinions swayed Markgraf, a former USWNT player herself, is unclear. Should other choices not favored by the players been considered? Now it appears the answer is certainly yes.
Whether or not the players vouched for Andonovski after working with him in the NWSL, his résumé never should have qualified him for managing the USWNT. His résumé included coaching stints men's indoor soccer, and he then won two NWSL championships when the fledgling league had just nine teams and wasn't attracting the coaching prospects it does now."

Anonymous wrote:The USWNT has turned into a bunch a Karen’s running around with a ball.

Glad they are out.

I used to enjoy them a few years ago; but they just seem to be angry people all the time.

Look in the mirror pal. You seem like the angry one. What is it about this team that triggers you when there are plenty of other examples of “angry people” that don’t trigger you?

Anonymous wrote:They absolutely did not dominate Sweden. The score was 0-0.

Have you forgotten about the Belgium vs. USMNT round of 16 match in 2014 that was 0-0 after 90 minutes?

Does CNN think this stuff helps endear people?

Moving on…these next round games should be pretty entertaining. Too bad the viewership numbers are down. The times are really sh#tty compounded by the inability to move game times to maximize tv viewership.

The USWNT has turned into a bunch a Karen’s running around with a ball.

Glad they are out.

I used to enjoy them a few years ago; but they just seem to be angry people all the time.

Anonymous wrote:LOL at 30 pages about girls sports.

I admittedly know nothing about girls soccer. It’s not even remotely meaningful to me.

But, I do know about girls basketball, and you could very easily find 7 guys at any urban YMCA on a Saturday who would absolutely throttle the best all-WNBA team that could be assembled across the entire history of the league.

Is soccer similar? I assume it must be.

The whole thing seems silly. USWNT “invented” global women’s soccer and only won WCs until other countries actually started trying and fielded teams.

Go away your Mom needs help bringing the groceries, she's making meatloaf tonight kiddo, now go watch your MMA and be angry that you live in your mom's basement

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL at 30 pages about girls sports.

I admittedly know nothing about girls soccer. It’s not even remotely meaningful to me.

But, I do know about girls basketball, and you could very easily find 7 guys at any urban YMCA on a Saturday who would absolutely throttle the best all-WNBA team that could be assembled across the entire history of the league.

Is soccer similar? I assume it must be.

The whole thing seems silly. USWNT “invented” global women’s soccer and only won WCs until other countries actually started trying and fielded teams.

Yes, it is similar. Maybe not to the level of basketball, but a D3 men’s college team would beat the USWNT easily.

I hear this comparison often, that a low level men’s team would beat the women. Well, duh but I’m struggling to find how that is relevant. Women’s sports shouldn’t exist because men can beat them? Sarena Williams was dominant in tennis but wouldn’t have beat even lower ranked men. But did that mean there shouldn’t be women’s tennis? Or Katie Ladecky in swimming. Or Simone Biles. I don’t get it. Let’s face it. Some men just don’t like women doing the things they do. I guess they feel threatened. 50 years ago women’s tennis was in this position but now it is mostly accepted, so I have hope for women’s soccer in the future.

Anonymous wrote:LOL at 30 pages about girls sports.

I admittedly know nothing about girls soccer. It’s not even remotely meaningful to me.

But, I do know about girls basketball, and you could very easily find 7 guys at any urban YMCA on a Saturday who would absolutely throttle the best all-WNBA team that could be assembled across the entire history of the league.

Is soccer similar? I assume it must be.

The whole thing seems silly. USWNT “invented” global women’s soccer and only won WCs until other countries actually started trying and fielded teams.

So much so that you took your time to come find this thread and post this drivel.

You're such a big bad dude that you needed to come dunk on women's sports when nobody was asking your opinion.

Loser.

Anonymous wrote:
Is soccer similar? I assume it must be.

Except they now get paid based on the success of the men's team.

Anonymous wrote:LOL at 30 pages about girls sports.

I admittedly know nothing about girls soccer. It’s not even remotely meaningful to me.

But, I do know about girls basketball, and you could very easily find 7 guys at any urban YMCA on a Saturday who would absolutely throttle the best all-WNBA team that could be assembled across the entire history of the league.

Is soccer similar? I assume it must be.

The whole thing seems silly. USWNT “invented” global women’s soccer and only won WCs until other countries actually started trying and fielded teams.

Yes, it is similar. Maybe not to the level of basketball, but a D3 men’s college team would beat the USWNT easily.

LOL at 30 pages about girls sports.

I admittedly know nothing about girls soccer. It’s not even remotely meaningful to me.

But, I do know about girls basketball, and you could very easily find 7 guys at any urban YMCA on a Saturday who would absolutely throttle the best all-WNBA team that could be assembled across the entire history of the league.

Is soccer similar? I assume it must be.

The whole thing seems silly. USWNT “invented” global women’s soccer and only won WCs until other countries actually started trying and fielded teams.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

3-4 quality chances does not equal “domination” - you are taking the comment out of context. Sweden had 1 good chance, 85th min that Naeher blocked. Nobody is arguing that Sweden was better…both teams play s- soccer and hopefully both will be home soon while quality teams compete for the Cup.

In my math book, 4 vs 0 = domination. Seems like plenty of people on here agree. And if you knew soccer, you would recognize that 4 quality chances at this level is very respectable.

I'm shocked US was favored so highly after their previous 2 games in this tournament. SHOCKED. They really are not all that. They absolutely did not dominate Sweden. The score was 0-0. If you call that getting some chances to score, you could say that South Africa dominated Netherlands cause let me tell you, in that game, S Africa had about the same number of chances. BUT they did not score. The US did NOT score. A 0-0 game means that nobody dominated. That the odds were so high for the US to win is based solely on reputation not on reality. If Sweden did not beat them, Japan would. If not, Netherlands probably would if they played again. I agree with PP saying both were S- teams. A solid team is going to have players that can put the ball in the net. It doesn't matter how many chances you have. You have to score! Even more if you had 4 chances!!!! The more you have that you don't, the s- you are!

Well said. 3-4 quality chances will typically equal 1 goal…So maybe that game should have been 1-0 US, but this joker thinks that is domination. Lol.

Anonymous wrote:

3-4 quality chances does not equal “domination” - you are taking the comment out of context. Sweden had 1 good chance, 85th min that Naeher blocked. Nobody is arguing that Sweden was better…both teams play s- soccer and hopefully both will be home soon while quality teams compete for the Cup.

In my math book, 4 vs 0 = domination. Seems like plenty of people on here agree. And if you knew soccer, you would recognize that 4 quality chances at this level is very respectable.

3-4 quality chances vs 1 isn’t domination. Substitute out watching garbage US women and youth soccer and watch some futbol and you may learn some things.