Women's World Cup 2019

[VillaChris]

Few thoughts from that:

Just like the men side, England's technique against elite nations isn't good enough.

US don't really wow me but they're very much like Germany if I would compare them to male national team, they're functional and also superb at closing games out when leading. Did it against France and tonight superbly.

She's been mentioned but at this level Millie Bright is a poor CB. She was dodgy in the other games and well and truly found out tonight.

Is Ellen White not a penalty taker? Find it bizarre top scorer isn't on penalties. Bit like Kane being on the pitch and Stones or Dele Ali taking them again to use male example.

Could understand Phil Neville making a few changes like taking Kirby out but would've kept same 4-3-3 shape. 4-4-2 and US just played between the lines too easily first half and killed England when attacking the left side.

England aren't far away though, just US are too good. Just seen England are hosting next euros in 2021 so that tournament will get loads of coverage and great chance for England to finally make a final in this.

[VillaChris]

1 hour ago, Lichfield Dean said:

I still think Sweden can win this tournament. They are a good team all round imo.

Think Holland will win, think the striker upfront who plays for Arsenal will make the difference like she did v Italy.

Holland did win euros two years ago so they know how to win at this stage and I think they'd give US better game in final.

[VillaChris]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Let's get it straight, that was absolutely the right result, and we didn't deserve that whatsoever. 

All that being said, I hate it when America win at anything related to football. My Twitter feed is going to be unreadable for days, just ream after ream of otherwise sound and interesting people suddenly rocket polishing on about their new-found interest in soccerball. 

Inform them their male team is playing in the Gold cup atm.

[Genie]

10 hours ago, imavillan said:

The BBC coverage it shite.

wtf is an American doing on the so called panel of experts. Bla bla bla bull shit. Doing my head in big time.

To provide some balance?

I thought she was excellent tbh, and came across quite classy and very complementary of England (just needs to take more care of her icloud password)

[Pelle]

Time do ditch the linesmen? I mean, what's the point in having them when there's technique to call offsides and to tell when the ball is over the line? I've seen twooffside calls not given by the assistant referee, yesterday's and Sweden against Canada when we were about to get a penalty, that was literally just inches offside. Then VAR stepped in and corrected the call. So, if we're going to VAR check every offside call then there's no need for an AR. Hawk eye could be used to give throwins too. And corners.

And apparently only France's penalties will be checked really hard when it comes to the keeper's moving her feet.

And to change the rules for handball just beofre a big tournament is just pure wrong.

Anyway, I've watched a few games of this World Cup and been surprisingly entertained. Yes' the pace is slower and there are far more misstakes, but the entertainment value is high, IMO.  Their game has improved very well. And for those who compares women's game with men's game and have it down to physics: Don't forget that they started to play football appr 100 years after men did, so they should be behind. And all men on top level are full time professional, which isn't the case for women. Also, they throw money on young boys to become good, they give money to young girls that have become good. There's a huge difference there.

[LakotaDakota]

2 hours ago, Pelle said:

Don't forget that they started to play football appr 100 years after men did, so they should be behind. And all men on top level are full time professional, which isn't the case for women.

Don't really buy this, Anything that happened 100 years ago, hell even 20 years ago has nothing really to do with the game today.

This is the world cup, supposedly the worlds elite, made up mostly of full-time professionals getting paid the same/more than most men in league 2/1 and they can't string more than 3 passes together on a regular basis. Lyon in particular are starting to get towards paying players half a million a year now so it's not like it is pennies. Sure it's entertaining enough but lets not kid ourselves here, The standard of football is shockingly bad and not even conference level. I would gladly lump money on any under 16/18 academy team to absolutey batter any of the teams there, Even America.

[Stevo985]

3 hours ago, Pelle said:

Time do ditch the linesmen? I mean, what's the point in having them when there's technique to call offsides and to tell when the ball is over the line? I've seen twooffside calls not given by the assistant referee, yesterday's and Sweden against Canada when we were about to get a penalty, that was literally just inches offside. Then VAR stepped in and corrected the call. So, if we're going to VAR check every offside call then there's no need for an AR. Hawk eye could be used to give throwins too. And corners.

And apparently only France's penalties will be checked really hard when it comes to the keeper's moving her feet.

And to change the rules for handball just beofre a big tournament is just pure wrong.

Anyway, I've watched a few games of this World Cup and been surprisingly entertained. Yes' the pace is slower and there are far more misstakes, but the entertainment value is high, IMO.  Their game has improved very well. And for those who compares women's game with men's game and have it down to physics: Don't forget that they started to play football appr 100 years after men did, so they should be behind. And all men on top level are full time professional, which isn't the case for women. Also, they throw money on young boys to become good, they give money to young girls that have become good. There's a huge difference there.

ARs aren't JUST there for offsides though.

It's a big job, and I've said elsewhere that I think they'll become redundant in terms of offsides.

But they do other things too. Calling if the ball is out of play, giving fouls the ref hasn't seen etc

 

I don't think it's the end of them, but we may well see their roles changed.

[kurtsimonw]

1 hour ago, LakotaDakota said:

Don't really buy this, Anything that happened 100 years ago, hell even 20 years ago has nothing really to do with the game today.

This is the world cup, supposedly the worlds elite, made up mostly of full-time professionals getting paid the same/more than most men in league 2/1 and they can't string more than 3 passes together on a regular basis. Lyon in particular are starting to get towards paying players half a million a year now so it's not like it is pennies. Sure it's entertaining enough but lets not kid ourselves here, The standard of football is shockingly bad and not even conference level. I would gladly lump money on any under 16/18 academy team to absolutey batter any of the teams there, Even America.

I'd be quite shocked if any of the 92 league sides couldn't hit double figures against a World XI from this World Cup. The standard really is disappointing.

[villalad21]

U.S will win it once again i predict.

[Pelle]

3 hours ago, LakotaDakota said:

Don't really buy this, Anything that happened 100 years ago, hell even 20 years ago has nothing really to do with the game today.

This is the world cup, supposedly the worlds elite, made up mostly of full-time professionals getting paid the same/more than most men in league 2/1 and they can't string more than 3 passes together on a regular basis. Lyon in particular are starting to get towards paying players half a million a year now so it's not like it is pennies. Sure it's entertaining enough but lets not kid ourselves here, The standard of football is shockingly bad and not even conference level. I would gladly lump money on any under 16/18 academy team to absolutey batter any of the teams there, Even America.

You seriously believe that? In the swedish national team most players are part time professionals and can't live on playing football. The english league is the first women league where every team is full time professionals. And I highly doubt that they're paid as much as the players in L1/2. ybe in Lyon, but not in most of the professional clubs. They really don't get the same economic possibilities to develop as men do. There is absolutely no genetic reason for why men should be able to control a ball better or understand the game better. Run faster, tackle harder, jump higher, yes, shoot harder, yes, but not the rest. If anything women might be better suited to control a ball better as they're at controlling their bodies.

[LakotaDakota]

15 minutes ago, Pelle said:

You seriously believe that? In the swedish national team most players are part time professionals and can't live on playing football. The english league is the first women league where every team is full time professionals. And I highly doubt that they're paid as much as the players in L1/2. ybe in Lyon, but not in most of the professional clubs. They really don't get the same economic possibilities to develop as men do. There is absolutely no genetic reason for why men should be able to control a ball better or understand the game better. Run faster, tackle harder, jump higher, yes, shoot harder, yes, but not the rest. If anything women might be better suited to control a ball better as they're at controlling their bodies.

There are plenty of men/boys in non-league football who work full time jobs, train 2 nights per week and play 46+ game seasons for £2-300 per week. If any of them gave the ball away as much as the england team last night they would never play another game.

Added to that is that their pitches & facilities are generally shit compared to anything the women are using.

Edited July 3, 2019 by LakotaDakota

[Pelle]

2 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

ARs aren't JUST there for offsides though.

It's a big job, and I've said elsewhere that I think they'll become redundant in terms of offsides.

But they do other things too. Calling if the ball is out of play, giving fouls the ref hasn't seen etc

 

I don't think it's the end of them, but we may well see their roles changed.

I know, I exaggerated a bit, but controlling if the ball is out is a task easily done by the technique. If we can have hawk eye on the goal line we can have it on the sidelines. But I guess that might be a bit expensive. But in general I'm just fuming a bit about some offsides call that were really close so the point in AR's calling for offsides is heading towards totally pointless. They can just let it go and then VAR will decide if it was or not. For me, the old git I'm turning into, it takes away a lot of the fun. And the offside Sweden got against them against Canada, well, the picture that we got from VAR was that the canadian defender's elbow was over the red line but apparently it didn't count. So which part of the body counts?

[Pelle]

2 minutes ago, LakotaDakota said:

There are plenty of men/boys in non-league football who work full time jobs, train 2 nights per week and play 46+ game seasons for £2-300 per week. If any of them gave the ball away as much as the england team last night they would never play another game

I see full professional PL teams do the same when under pressure. How many times did we give the ball away the season we went down? I agree that England gave the ball away too easy too many times last night, but that happens a lot in men's football too when a bad teams plays against a good team that puts a high and collective pressure. I watched England against Norway and was very impressed apart from a period in the 2nd half when they gave away the ball for fun in very dangerous positions. But for the rest of the game they kept the ball very well. But of course there are more misstakes in women's game. en's football is the undisputed biggest and most popular sport in the world, which means that most young boys in most countries will play football, which makes it easier to find the really good ones and train them and make them good. In women's football there is a lot more competition from other sports that might pull some girls that could've been fantastic in football. And clubs have more money to spend on young boys that might have some potential then they have to spend on girls with potential. As I said earlier, they put up money for boys to become good, they put up money on girls that have come good.

Anyway, if you don't like their football you don't have to, and you don't have to watch it, and you certainly don't have to talk it down either. I mean, what's the problem in women playing football?

[Stevo985]

10 minutes ago, Pelle said:

I know, I exaggerated a bit, but controlling if the ball is out is a task easily done by the technique. If we can have hawk eye on the goal line we can have it on the sidelines.

Maybe... but it might be a harder and more expensive to do it for the entire outline of the pitch rather than just the goal mouth.

10 minutes ago, Pelle said:

And the offside Sweden got against them against Canada, well, the picture that we got from VAR was that the canadian defender's elbow was over the red line but apparently it didn't count. So which part of the body counts?

The current rules are it has to be a part of the body you can score with.

[sne]

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

Maybe... but it might be a harder and more expensive to do it for the entire outline of the pitch rather than just the goal mouth.

The current rules are it has to be a part of the body you can score with.

Does that go for the defender as well since they can use their arms (a bit) to try and stop the attacker?

Genuine question as I don't know.

 

[LakotaDakota]

1 minute ago, Pelle said:

Anyway, if you don't like their football you don't have to, and you don't have to watch it, and you certainly don't have to talk it down either. I mean, what's the problem in women playing football?

Have no problem with women/dogs/men/kids whatever playing football. I didn't say i didn't like it either, I said it was generally quite entertaining but the quality is shit, I have watched plenty of kids football over the years too & often that is the same.

The hysterical media coverage, complete dishonesty by the commentators & pundits regarding the quality and mixing all the stats in with the mens game is way over the top though, They don't do it in any other sport so why pick football to start...

Pick any game from this tournament, put it on sky monday night football and carragher & neville would still be picking fault with everything & saying how crap players were on Tuesday lunchtime yet if the commentators & pundits are to believed this is elite world class sport...

[Pelle]

5 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Maybe... but it might be a harder and more expensive to do it for the entire outline of the pitch rather than just the goal mouth.

The current rules are it has to be a part of the body you can score with.

Yeah, I've heard that but wasn't sure it was true. But then you realise how ridivulous close that call was. Even closer than the England call from yesterday. I think it was in the '90's that they changed the rules a bit saying that being in line with the defender was ok, and then they also said that it should always be for the benefit of the attacker as it would generate more goals and goals is what the audience wants to see. This is slightly going against that, IMO. But that's another discussion. And the things is, when Sweden played USA there was a situation on one of their goals where it was clear offside. Did they check it on vAR? Did they ****.

[Stevo985]

2 minutes ago, LakotaDakota said:

Have no problem with women/dogs/men/kids whatever playing football. I didn't say i didn't like it either, I said it was generally quite entertaining but the quality is shit, I have watched plenty of kids football over the years too & often that is the same.

The hysterical media coverage, complete dishonesty by the commentators & pundits regarding the quality and mixing all the stats in with the mens game is way over the top though, They don't do it in any other sport so why pick football to start...

Pick any game from this tournament, put it on sky monday night football and carragher & neville would still be picking fault with everything & saying how crap players were on Tuesday lunchtime yet if the commentators & pundits are to believed this is elite world class sport...

But don't the commentators and pundits adjust their reference to suit the level they're commentating on? 

It would be ridiculous if they were applying the expectations of the men's game to the women's game. 

When commentators commentate on women's athletics they don't mention how crap the times are compared to the men's times. Similarly if you watch a League 2 football match they don't go on about how terrible the football is because they're used to commentating on the premier league. They adjust their reference points.

[Stevo985]

8 minutes ago, sne said:

Does that go for the defender as well since they can use their arms (a bit) to try and stop the attacker?

Genuine question as I don't know.

 

Yeah I don't know. I imagine it refers to parts of the body you can legally use to touch the ball. Not parts of the body you can use to touch another player (ooo errrr)

[kurtsimonw]

30 minutes ago, Pelle said:

You seriously believe that? In the swedish national team most players are part time professionals and can't live on playing football. The english league is the first women league where every team is full time professionals. And I highly doubt that they're paid as much as the players in L1/2. ybe in Lyon, but not in most of the professional clubs. They really don't get the same economic possibilities to develop as men do. There is absolutely no genetic reason for why men should be able to control a ball better or understand the game better. Run faster, tackle harder, jump higher, yes, shoot harder, yes, but not the rest. If anything women might be better suited to control a ball better as they're at controlling their bodies.

I think League 2/National League wages are likely similar to the women in the women's Premier League - the women's Premier League players also have access to better training facilities too, I imagine.

Football is also a sport. An individual player may have a better brain than someone else, but it's still a sport. A such, physical attributes are necessary in a team - this is where genetics give men an advantage.