2015 Women's World Cup
- Thread starter Titans Bastard
- Start date
Dudley Doright followed by the ladies from the Simply Irresistible video bringing out the hardware.
She must be a statue if she's not the starter. That kind of size matters so muchAverage Reds said:
6'1"Average Reds said:
Ok a slight exaggeration 13 saves on 16 shots. She had 5 saves against Australia.Average Reds said:
Still she barely saw any shots after that. I hate giving the golden glove to someone on the back of their amazing defense not giving up any shots on target.
No question that the individual awards are all a bit unjust in that sense.Cellar-Door said:
At the same time, Solo is arguably the best keeper in the game and she was the player of the match against Australia, so I have no problem with that.
Edit: and the 6' 1" is funny. She looked gigantic standing with her teammates.
She shut out the Swiss in their first game. Looks like she injured her shoulder either in that game or training since she didn't play again since.teddykgb said:
Really hasn't been anything about this Japan team I haven't liked in this tournament. I found them easy to root for. Not really sure what happened to their defensive organization today.soxhop411 said:
You have to give it to Ellis. Finding the right defensive balace this year won it. The play from the corner leading to the first goal was well conceived and perfectly executed. And it rocked Japan hard. She also managed her roster really well -- Wambaugh and Leroux particularly and not being afraid to make tough decisions and play hot hands.
In the unsung hero department, Kreiger was fantastic. She ran box to box, and her work rate was off the charts. It seemed like instead of staying back all game she had responsibility to help support the midfield, where Japan was sort dominating. She had a couple of giveaways, but in terms of touches and responsibility she had a lot to do today.
Great tournament for the USA. Just peaked exactly right.
I know Fox bashing is fasionable, but I really thought the Vancouver studio was really good all tournament, even Lalas.
One thing I noticed in this tournament is that teams were willing to rotate their players, and to change things if they were;t working, Both England and the US started the tournament with different forward lines and different formations to how they ended it. This is a complete contrast to the men's game where England trot out the same players in the same formation every match till they are eliminated before the quarter finals 
Lalas likes to troll, but I agree that the studio crew was fine. Actually the B team wasn't bad either. The Dellacamera/DiCiccio/Whitehill team is the worst ever assembled.DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
Unsung hero dept' #2: Brian really changed the tournament for the US. Her break-up play and quick distribution really made a difference.
Yeah. Part of that is Ellis finally caving and changing the formation. Everyone knew someone needed to play that role, and it wasn't going to work with a higher pair of Lloyd and Holliday half-assing it. She brought in Brian to play deeper and central, slid Lloyd up and it made a HUGE difference.Tangled Up In Red said:
Amazing that the US could win the World Cup with Wambach, Morgan, and Leroux combining for 2 goals in the tournament.
Not only was Lloyd's 3rd minute goal the fastest goal ever in a Women's World Cup Final, but all 4 goals the US scored in the first 16 minutes were earlier than the previous fastest goal (Michelle Akers scored in the 20th minute in 1991).
SoxFanInCali said:
They really did spread it around. Nobody but Lloyd scored in more than one game. It's a little misleading, though. Morgan, though her finishing was bad, was a menace all the time, and drew two penalties in addition to scoring her goal. Rapinoe picked up some of the slack, drawing a penalty and scoring two goals.
Part of all that, though, is they had a tough opening group. Unlike some of the other top ranked teams, they didn't have the chance to rack up goals in the early going. 14 goals seems pretty modest for the World Cup Champion -- and a bit of a testament to the current parity of the game. I would think most times the Champion had at least one and maybe two games during the group stage in which it dominates minnows like the Swiss, Germany, and Norway were able to do. The US finishing could have been better against China and Columbia, but by and large, 14 is pretty modest number for 7 games for the Champion.
I think that's the way it's going to go, though, going forward in the Women's World Cup. Ecuador, Ivory Coast, Thailand, and even Mexico a little really skewed the goal numbers among the teams. But in the groups that didn't have one of those sides, the scoring really was down and the group was highly competitive. Four years from now, with more parity, I think most or all of the groups are going to look a lot like groups A, D and E did this year, unless the field expands.
So, not missing an opportunity to make screw up a good thing, this is the tweet that the English FA sent out today on the Lionesses return to England:
"Our #Lionesses go back to being mothers, partners, and daughters today, but they have taken on another title - heroes"
"Our #Lionesses go back to being mothers, partners, and daughters today, but they have taken on another title - heroes"
Wynalda is trying to get members of the team to drink champagne at 10AM. Because of course he is.
I think he's referring to the idea that now that the tournament is over, they can go back to their traditional female roles.EvilEmpire said:
What are the relative percentages of revenue? I am not really going to get upset unless FIFA is stashing/stealing revenue they generated from this cup relative to wha they do with the men's cup. I think the only issues really worth getting upset about from this cup were the turf issues that affected the quality of play(you could count diving tackles on two hands in the final) and the awkward and patronizing was that the women were represented and promoted at times.
Also, did FIFA give the 19-27 world cups to Fox like they did the Men's cup through 2026? I am curious to see what the WWC right will make on the open market after beating major U.S. domestic sports championships .
Also, did FIFA give the 19-27 world cups to Fox like they did the Men's cup through 2026? I am curious to see what the WWC right will make on the open market after beating major U.S. domestic sports championships .
Yeah, I think you're right. I somehow read the "make screw up a good thing" as referring to the OG in the Japan game. Sorry swiftaw.
Seriously does anyone actually read the Sundhage quote? I feel like every article is written by people who didn't.Hagios said:
Gunfighter 09 said:
I see the logic of this argument, but other sports have decided to make the payouts to male and female athletes the same. Maybe FIFA should follow suit.
Men's and women's tennis bring in similar ratings and revenues. The revenue split in men's vs women's soccer is enormous.epraz said:
Plus, I think the payouts we are talking about go to the national federations, not directly to the players. It's not that the US Women are being paid less than the US men by FIFA, it's US Soccer receiving less of a payment from the Women's World Cup than they received from the Men's. What US Soccer pays the players is a separate discussion.
It's not like that money is going to the players or to women's/men's programs anyway. It just goes to the federation.
I'll say this: $2M to the USSF is going to go a lot further toward developing soccer in the USA than $8M to the kleptocrats in most of world soccer.
I'll say this: $2M to the USSF is going to go a lot further toward developing soccer in the USA than $8M to the kleptocrats in most of world soccer.
That $2M will be of great use in the legal battle to screw development clubs out of the money they deserve.DLew On Roids said:
USSF isn't anywhere near as bad as some places, but it is still set up to help itself and it's partners like MLS far more than it is really set up to do what is best for soccer in the US.
The development clubs the players pay to play for already? Why should they get money on both ends?
Why not? The money is part of the transfer. The money isn't coming from the player.DLew On Roids said:
Why should MLS get to take the money mandated by FIFA to go to development clubs.
If kids don't want to pay to play they don't have to.
Remember MLS says they don't have to pay ANY club, whether paid or not.
Cellar-Door said:
This is entirely unrealistic in the US development system today. Kids who don't pay to play don't make it. The MLS academies are helping, but they're not ubiquitous and kids who can't pay for travel teams can't exactly get mom to drive them to the academy every day either.
When development clubs in the USA stop being a racket that squeezes money out of families, I'll have some sympathy for the business owners. But they're just trying to make a buck like MLS teams are. There's no moral high ground here.
DLew On Roids said:
Yes, and besides, women's soccer has much lower hanging fruit. IIRC the players on the national team already get a decent (by women's soccer standard) salary. I'd rather see the money go to professional players getting the league minimum, or even to the owners of NWSL teams. The priority is for a sustainable pro soccer league, not to throw millions at a few heroes.
DLew On Roids said:
Agreed. I was a bit surprised that there was no underlying current about the lack of diversity on the US team - a team of middle class white women from affluent families. Bracketing the social justice aspects, that severely restricts the talent pool.
This article (from the always excellent Vice Sports) is about the men's program, but the lessons apply just as much to the women's game.
I agree there isn't, but my problem is that the USSF likes to make up rules as they go along, most notably with MLS. MLS is a racket as well as the development leagues. I see no reason they should flout the FIFA rules with the USSF's help to divert money to MLS.DLew On Roids said:
Additionally while many development teams are scammers, all development teams can't afford not to charge parents because there is no real money coming from USSF, no sponsors, etc. and letting MLS eat the solidarity fees makes it worse. If development teams got the big money that comes from solidarity there would be a much higher incentive for them to take on at least some talented youngsters for free with the hope of making big money on the back end.
Cellar-Door said:
There's not that much big money coming in from transfers, though. You'll get the odd $10m Altidore transfer or $4m Yedlin transfer, but it will hardly move the needle nationally. Besides, who thinks these clubs will convert these fees into scholarship programs instead of just paying it out to club ownership?
It's a battle over transfer spoils. I don't think it will make much of a difference in player development either way.
While I don't see the value of following FIFA rules just because, I think you're absolutely right that USSF often operates by the seat of its pants and tends to favor MLS in the hope that they'll share some greater footballing glory someday (and also because the USSF remains an amateurish clownshow, similar to most federations).Cellar-Door said:
I could be wrong here, and please correct me if I am, but wouldn't MLS getting to a level that is even with the big 5 leagues in Europe (or at least Italy/France) be the single best thing that could happen to US Soccer in terms of getting the men's national team to a level close to where the women are today?