* Official 2023 Women's World Cup Thread *

52,521 Views | 728 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by aTmAg
bthotugigem05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What a great finish
wangus12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dutch just missed the best chance of the game. Finishing in this entire tournament has been rough for everyone
wangus12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dutch missed 2 great chances and Spain immediately score
HummingbirdSaltalamacchia
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
wangus12 said:

Dutch just missed the best chance of the game. Finishing in this entire tournament has been rough for everyone

Spain had two amazing chances go off the woodwork in the first half. With better finishing, Spain could have had 3or 4. They were the dominant side

But yeah, finishing has been awful for pretty much everyone in this WC
akm91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I guess it was karma that she missed all those chances.
PatAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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
PatAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
carl spacklers hat said:

GrayMatter said:

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.
that's bull*****

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.
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.

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 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.
We also actually made the quarter finals in 2002
jeffk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Spain and Sweden advance.
carl spacklers hat
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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 agree. Beerensteyn was pretty vocal in her criticism, but maybe it was justified, I don't know.

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.

People think I'm an idiot or something, because all I do is cut lawns for a living.
dcaggie04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
jeffk said:

Spain and Sweden advance.


Halfway to an all Euro final four.
Knucklesammich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PatAg said:

carl spacklers hat said:

GrayMatter said:

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.
that's bull*****

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.
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.

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 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.
We also actually made the quarter finals in 2002
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.

Also what is the sunk/cost write down for missing 2018?

Lastly to use a business term, the mens' game is 100 years old. The womens' game is really only 23 years old and for most of the world its 15 years old. It is in start up mode which requires investment at lower returns to jump start.

What do I mean by that? The 2007 price pool was $5.3m and the 2023 Prize Pool is $110m. The prize pool for 2014 was $15m. Yes the men's team is helping fund the women's team, but that investment builds soccer as a whole which is good for everyone.

It has a long way to catch up to the men's game (not saying it ever does) but the only way to get there is fuel better and better soccer from more teams. To do that it takes money.

Knucklesammich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
carl spacklers hat said:

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 agree. Beerensteyn was pretty vocal in her criticism, but maybe it was justified, I don't know.

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.


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.

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.
akm91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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.
Just like their male counterpart.
Mathguy64
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Beat me to it.
Giggem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This has been a terrifically entertaining World Cup. So many great story lines and great performances. The women's game has advanced noticeably in the last two-three World Cups. The quality of players across the pitch across multiple teams is very, very high. Fantastic to watch.
fig96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So the biggest call in that match...pen or no pen?

Mathguy64
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
For me that's a PK, RC for DOGSO. I can see saying no DOGSO if you think she's not getting the ball but it's still a foul. The defender is beat. It's shoulder to shoulder blade not making a play on the ball.

But if you don't want to call that I get it. Either way VAR shouldn't get involved.
akm91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think it was a penalty as it wasn't shoulder to shoulder.
Aston94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Definitely a foul/penalty. Only question I have is could she get to the ball. I have my doubts on that.
carl spacklers hat
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sorry you missed my point, which was that the post to which I was responding was factually incorrect, on two separate counts. You're diving into a different pond.
People think I'm an idiot or something, because all I do is cut lawns for a living.
gougler08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think PK for sure
bthotugigem05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Fantastic Aussie/French game. Went to 10 PKs, a Australia/England semifinal would be absolutely insane.
jeffk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aussie did it!
jeffk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sad to see Colombia go out. Just a fun team to watch.
Mathguy64
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Gotta say I love the Colombian kit. The blue and yellow is sharp and the added tie dye pink add in is well done.

England on the other hand has the classic Nike "you will wear plain white and like it!"
fig96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Better than the Nike US "you'll wear plain white and like it but also we're gonna spatter/tie dye/do something to it just because".
Knucklesammich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another fun game to watch...England figured out a way.
TshirtVulture
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
jessexy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not to derail the entire thread but this opens up a chance for the American referees to work much deeper into the tournament than normal. Since the USWNT always advances pretty deep into the tournament, that limits the chances for CONCACAF refs. On the women's side, they tend to be the best in the world since soccer has been more advanced in the USA and Canada.

There are 2 crews of Americans and one Canadian crew that are all good on the world stage. And the Director of Women's Officiating for FIFA is an American woman. There is also a USA VAR crew and 2 Canadian VARs over there now.

If you remember the men's World Cup, an American referee was the 4th official for the final between Argentina and France. So, this has been a successful World Cup year for USA officiating and for PRO, even though there are some negative opinions for those that follow MLS.
jessexy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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.
FIFY - Colombia. with an "o"
jeffk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
IDK, he could have been admiring the singing talents of a choir from DC
TshirtVulture
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ah yes, thanks
Mathguy64
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
To me Penso is the better R but Koroleva has the better crew.

It will be interesting to see if Seitz uses her muscle. If she were Italian and the crews were Italian I guarantee it would happen. Same for a CONMEBOL head.
Danger Mouse
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This has been the most entertaining WCC's I've watched. There are a lot of really good teams having the overall skill to win.
Class of '91 (MEEN)
jeffk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Semi-final schedule (for real this time):

Spain vs Sweden - Tuesday, 4:00 am ET
Australia vs England - Wednesday, 6:00 am ET
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.