What a great finish
wangus12 said:
Dutch just missed the best chance of the game. Finishing in this entire tournament has been rough for everyone
We also actually made the quarter finals in 2002carl spacklers hat said:The bolded part is patently false information, bull**** to use your vernacular. In the last 2 WCs the men have participated in, they have won a total of $20.7 million (2022 and 2014). The combined payout for the women for winning the '19 and '15 WWCs was $6 million. They won $2.9 million for reaching this year's round of 16.GrayMatter said:that's bull*****Quote:
The women's team has been trending down, they make a deal to "share" (steal) money from the men's team, they suck and generate less revenue than they have in the past.They suck? They've won 4 out of 9 World Cups and were attempting to be the first team, men or women's, to win 3 WC's in a row.Quote:
The U.S. team's 1-1 draw against the Netherlands averaged 6.43 million viewers on Fox, making it the most watched contest in the group stages of any Women's World Cup in the United States. The prior record was 5.34 million viewers for U.S.-Chile in 2019. The U.S. women's first game this year ranks third with 5.26 million viewers.
And of course they'll generate less revenue this year. The teams make more money when they win, duh. However, because the men haven't sniffed at least the quarterfinals in almost 100 years, the women have generated more revenue from their World Cup wins than the men's team.
So what narrative are you trying to tell, again?
TL;DR version - We're going to retool and reload after we get rid of the coach.
I agree. Beerensteyn was pretty vocal in her criticism, but maybe it was justified, I don't know.PatAg said:
Even though they were kinda justified to call out the marketing for the US team....its also kindaaaa funny that they lost immediately after doing it
jeffk said:
Spain and Sweden advance.
The men missed the 2018 world cup so the more fair comparison would be 2011, 15, and 19 world cup cycles vs. the 14, 18, and 22 cycles for the men.PatAg said:We also actually made the quarter finals in 2002carl spacklers hat said:The bolded part is patently false information, bull**** to use your vernacular. In the last 2 WCs the men have participated in, they have won a total of $20.7 million (2022 and 2014). The combined payout for the women for winning the '19 and '15 WWCs was $6 million. They won $2.9 million for reaching this year's round of 16.GrayMatter said:that's bull*****Quote:
The women's team has been trending down, they make a deal to "share" (steal) money from the men's team, they suck and generate less revenue than they have in the past.They suck? They've won 4 out of 9 World Cups and were attempting to be the first team, men or women's, to win 3 WC's in a row.Quote:
The U.S. team's 1-1 draw against the Netherlands averaged 6.43 million viewers on Fox, making it the most watched contest in the group stages of any Women's World Cup in the United States. The prior record was 5.34 million viewers for U.S.-Chile in 2019. The U.S. women's first game this year ranks third with 5.26 million viewers.
And of course they'll generate less revenue this year. The teams make more money when they win, duh. However, because the men haven't sniffed at least the quarterfinals in almost 100 years, the women have generated more revenue from their World Cup wins than the men's team.
So what narrative are you trying to tell, again?
TL;DR version - We're going to retool and reload after we get rid of the coach.
The Dutch were also missing their best player due to card accumulation, especially in the build out game and the Dutch had their chances to win.carl spacklers hat said:I agree. Beerensteyn was pretty vocal in her criticism, but maybe it was justified, I don't know.PatAg said:
Even though they were kinda justified to call out the marketing for the US team....its also kindaaaa funny that they lost immediately after doing it
I thought Spain were the far superior side, and has been noted, except for great goalkeeping from the post, would have had at least one more. The Dutch style was dump and chase, which reminded me of 90s and 2000s era US Men's teams. Pretty ugly soccer from them but I guess they had to adjust to that style since Spain made it near impossible for them to build out of the back with their pressure.
Just like their male counterpart.Quote:
Spain is such a strange team, they are completely dominant until they get with 15m of the goal and they become very ordinary when compared to their overall skill level.
Penalty check to the Netherlands! pic.twitter.com/clNvcG1AJu
— Armena (@Armena____) August 11, 2023
FIFY - Colombia. with an "o"TshirtVulture said:
Fixing to show replay of Columbia England on Telemundo if anyone interested. Pretty impressive watching Columbia players and fans belt out their national anthem. English did sing also but Columbia was next level.