I swear Greenwood and Bronze are both better than Young
WWC19 | Final: USA v Netherlands
- Thread starter jojojo
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Greenwood is genuinely good enough to play for us (the men's team). Would instantly become one of our best technical players.
How good is Mead??
I think she is really good.
I was being a bit cheeky. It would probably be a massacre but at the same time the women might spend less time on the ground whining about shit.
Georgia Stanway on for Mead.
Argentina are a scrappy team.
England have 11 players on the pitch and 11 players on the bench. Not one is a United player. Hopefully that will change next female world cup.
Bronze is so good. Has taken a bit of a kicking tonight.
There are two United players on the pitch. Greenwood and McManus.
Not quite
Commentators watching a different game to me. Kirby has been abysmal and they're saying shes arguably MOTM.
Think she has given the ball away a lot.
She's played the wrong pass almost every single time. It's almost definitely the worst I've ever seen her play.
She's been poor and invisible in recent matches. Tonight she was underpar with flashes, but at least she's visible again - hopefully it really is progress.
1-0 it is. Phew.
England through.
Greenwood now joins Beckham on the elusive list of United captains I quite fancy.
I prefer lager
I've never been a Kirby fan. Carney ought to play, imo.
Last edited:
Errrrm...
Alex Greenwood, what a player.
Scott was by far the best player on the pitch
Better attendance tonight - 20,294.
Whatever happened in Nice, happened in Nice.
Whatever happened in Nice, happened in Nice.
I thought Parris was superb tonight, Jill Scott controlled the midfield, but I thought Kirby was frustratingly poor.
But we’re through and that’s the main thing, we just need to make sure we take at least a point against Japan as I think winning the group will turn out to be really important.
But we’re through and that’s the main thing, we just need to make sure we take at least a point against Japan as I think winning the group will turn out to be really important.
Hard not to be visible when you're the main playmaker against a very poor side though.
Amazed at the praise being given to the team. England are one of the best sides in the World and they've just struggled past a very poor, albeit organised, side. It's like England mens beating Armenia 1-0 and everyone saying how well they played. I'm all for positivity but it isn't wrong to criticise them when they play badly.
Would need to check again but fairly sure it's better to finish 2nd. Group winners play USA/France in Semi.
Think it's not worth it to think so far ahead , should try to finish first and get an easier round of 16 game
Surely they don't get a man of the match award ?
Genuine question, i don't really watch too much women's football.
Likely to have to play one of them anyway should they reach the final so why not just do it a round earlier and top your group?
I went through it last night and you are right but the route to that semi is pretty decent, if we finish runners up I think we are on to play Netherlands in the 2nd round iirc
Pearce quite pointedly asked Smith who her player of the match was so I'm guessing it's not officially man of the match, it's just that man of the match has over the years become the default term for that type of award.
Because topping your group is essentially meaningless. It's a much much easier route to the final by finishing 2nd. England will more than likely lose to either side, it makes sense to do it in the final in my opinion.
FIFA actually gave player of the match to Correa
Ok, i don't see why they don't just call it a woman of the match to be honest.
Never really a fan of this line of thinking. Wasn't a fan of it when it was being talked of in the build to England/Belgium in last summer's men's tournament. Just win your games and you'll win the tournament.
I think the logic is that player of the match should be used in the men's game too.
Agree but I can’t help but think it would be a better sporting aesthetic if they had a smaller pitch, smaller goals and a lighter ball. To speed up the game a bit.
Disappointed with the defending for Jamaica's goals conceded earlier. Highly preventable. But lots of inexperience. Aim should be to qualify again next time and progress to the next round.
Me too.