Cristiane gets her fourth goal of the tournament, good header from a nice cross. Brazil lead 2-0.
Australia under a lot of pressure now.
Australia under a lot of pressure now.
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.
2-1 just as they go to halftime.
The Australians have been the better team but wasteful when around the box but finally got it right at the end of the half.
Carpenter looks decent at LB for the aussies and is being given plenty of space if they can exploit it.
Interesting 2nd half to come.
Carpenter looks decent at LB for the aussies and is being given plenty of space if they can exploit it.
Interesting 2nd half to come.
So is this a goalkeeper error, or is she just too short? Bad positioning though.
Australia draw level - keeper baffled by a bouncing ball shot/pass from Logarzo, and Kerr running in without actually connecting.
Last edited:
Misread it like that and I don't care how tall you are (or how small the goal is) you're not stopping it.
Such a good game now! Christiane is a great player.
And now what looked like it could be an own goal but got ruled out for offside. Gone to VAR to decide if Kerr was interfering with play. Eventful game, even if not one I'll remember for the football quality.
Goal stands, Aussies lead 3-2
Goal stands, Aussies lead 3-2
That’s an offside, the defender wouldn’t be heading that if the offside player wasn’t there. That’s a crazy call
That's no goal for me. How is the attacking player not interfering? If she's not there then the defender does not do that.
Surely Kerr was interfering with play there. Some interesting decisions in this game
Why this isn't offside?
The ball was played to a player in offside position and that's why the brazilian player had to clear it.
The ball was played to a player in offside position and that's why the brazilian player had to clear it.
I hate these "interfering or not" offside decisions. I don't see the point of an attacker running into that position unless they're interfering. What's the attacker running for if not to interfere?
I mean the crazy thing is VAR is instrumental in giving the wrong decision there. The lineswoman has flagged
And the ref confirmed it. I reckon the VAR system made the ref lose her nerve there.
Misread it like that and I don't care how tall you are (or how small the goal is) you're not stopping it.
I definitely agree. The way she was positioned left her no chance to get to it in the end. But what I mean is, her positioning didn't allow for her to get there. She could've made a precautionary step to the right, as the ball was coming in. It went in fairly centrally for one of these crosses that miss everybody and go in. But that's where I'm wondering if I'm just thinking about male goalkeepers, where these crosses can fall in at the second post but would be kept out when they're rather central. Obviously after no one made contact, she stretched out as far as she could, and physically couldn't get to it anymore the way she was positioned.
Yeh I think you’re right, as the commentator said having the VAR officials call you up might make refs second guess their decision. That being said I’m still fully for VAR.
The rule used to be that any of these runs are an interference with play, if they cause the defender to react.
But as it is now, she didn't interfere with play as she wasn't physically near the ball and didn't hinder the defender as she was making the jump. The ref even signalled to the Brazilian players with her arms and hands that the striker was not physically connecting with the defender, to explain why it's not offside. The only other possible option for offside would be, if she had been hindering the goalkeeper's view. But she didn't. Thus it's a goal and not offside.
But as it is now, she didn't interfere with play as she wasn't physically near the ball and didn't hinder the defender as she was making the jump. The ref even signalled to the Brazilian players with her arms and hands that the striker was not physically connecting with the defender, to explain why it's not offside. The only other possible option for offside would be, if she had been hindering the goalkeeper's view. But she didn't. Thus it's a goal and not offside.
I'd be happy if they stuck to the "obvious error" principle. There's nothing obvious that the ref did wrong there, it was a judgment call.
It was an obvious error in the way that she didn't actually "interfere" with play. Being a defender myself, I absolutely agree that the defender wouldn't have jumped, had the striker not made the run. That much is obvious. But the mental aspect isn't in the rules anymore as far as I'm aware. Had they bumped into each other as the defender was heading it, then she would've interfered.
That's an awful rule revision. I suppose we'll get used to it, but I hate it already.
That said, and I'm sorry, I am obviously enjoying the WWC, but I can't believe the amount of absolute shitehouse goals that have been happening.
AUS 3-2 Brazil
KOR 0-1 NGA
FRA 1-1 NOR
NOR 3-0 NGA
AUS 1-1 ITA
the penalties against South Africa and against Norway, where the followthrough of clearance kicks led to fouls
AUS 3-2 Brazil
KOR 0-1 NGA
FRA 1-1 NOR
NOR 3-0 NGA
AUS 1-1 ITA
the penalties against South Africa and against Norway, where the followthrough of clearance kicks led to fouls
Last edited:
I don’t like these decisions from the referee. The last goal from Australia was incorrect. Good games ends up in tears because of incompetence. That’s not what these young women needs.
Bad decisions are annoying, regardless of whether young women or rough looking men (just as young) are playing.
But I don't think this decision was factually incorrect, as much as the rules regarding this are seemingly really dumb. I do think Brazil could've had a penalty at the end though.
Last edited:
Hahaha!
Marta just responded to German interviewer + interpreter to all the interview questions till they said something along the lines of: "thanks and good luck."
Then Marta continues without being asked and tells the interpreter: "Well, I also have 16 World Cup goals now, just like your beloved Klose! You could've asked me about that, you badly informed feckers. Go interpreter, tell your interviewer that!"
Then the interviewer says to Marta: "aaah haha, yes yes, Klose!"
She leaves without the interpreter translating her words.
The interviewer thus asks the interpreter in front of the cameras what Marta said. The interpreter tells him that she just called them badly informed noobs.
Marta just responded to German interviewer + interpreter to all the interview questions till they said something along the lines of: "thanks and good luck."
Then Marta continues without being asked and tells the interpreter: "Well, I also have 16 World Cup goals now, just like your beloved Klose! You could've asked me about that, you badly informed feckers.
Go interpreter, tell your interviewer that!"Then the interviewer says to Marta: "aaah haha, yes yes, Klose!"
She leaves without the interpreter translating her words.
The interviewer thus asks the interpreter in front of the cameras what Marta said. The interpreter tells him that she just called them badly informed noobs.
Enjoyed that game which was probably the pick of the two games today. There could be a potential shock in the next game, China looked really slow against Germany and South Africa specifically down the right have a lot of pace and power. It should be an interesting contest.
South Africa really got fecked over in the first game by two really unlucky pens and a red card resulting from those pens. I also think South Africa could cause an upset because of their quick forwards.
China open the scoring. China have been on top most of the game, but SA have had some opportunities with very fast breaks.
And China hit the bar and it bounces on the line - but the goalline tech doesn't see a goal.
And China hit the bar and it bounces on the line - but the goalline tech doesn't see a goal.
South Africa have one weapon and absolutely no idea how to use it.
A setpiece following one of these fast breaks feels like SA's best chance of equalising. They've still given the Chinese keeper nothing to do in open play.
I was disappointed with South Africa tonight, I thought that they should have used the pace of their really quick player on the shoulder of the last defender, instead she was shunted wide left and completely ineffectual.
On to tomorrow and both the Scotland and England games.
On to tomorrow and both the Scotland and England games.
14th June: England and Scotland in action
Big day on the BBC.
D: Japan v Scotland 2pm - BBC One
C: Jamaica vs Italy 5pm - BBC red button
D: England vs Argentina 8pm - BBC One
Italy will want three points here - which will send them through to the next round and give them a good chance of topping the group. Jamaica will want to score.
Japan's draw with Argentina has made for a very interesting group. The matches could be closer than the rankings suggest.
D: Japan v Scotland 2pm - BBC One
C: Jamaica vs Italy 5pm - BBC red button
D: England vs Argentina 8pm - BBC One
Italy will want three points here - which will send them through to the next round and give them a good chance of topping the group. Jamaica will want to score.
Japan's draw with Argentina has made for a very interesting group. The matches could be closer than the rankings suggest.
Emma Hayes was talking about goal-size & pitch dimensions in the Times yesterday (behind the paywall, unfortunately).
Conversation worth having / and maybe relevant for lower levels & age groups I think she ended up heading towards.
Conversation worth having / and maybe relevant for lower levels & age groups I think she ended up heading towards.
It's a worthwhile debate but I just don't see enough advantages to having different pitch configurations for the women. I think it addresses a particular problem - which is basically that when amateur/semipro women are on TV, they sometimes look out of their depth. But actually, that's not about the pitch size, it's because they really are out of their depth against pro teams and teams with qualified coaches.
To me, the disadvantages seem far worse. Anything that reduces access to pitches/stadia or makes it more expensive or harder to schedule is bad news for female amateur teams and kids teams, and particularly for teams outside North America and Western Europe. It could even make the disparity between funded national teams and underfunded ones worse - if it reduces grassroots participation, leagues and youth team facilities.
That said, pitch dimensions in particular have always been flexible - designed to cope with clubs who needed a pitch but struggled to find space - currently the general regulations state:
FIFA's regulation for the WWC says:
Unless otherwise approved by FIFA, the pitch shall have the following dimensions: length 105m, width 68m.
So the flexibility already exists, and it's really up to the women's game to decide how to use it at the top level.
Not the case with goal dimensions though - though I still say most problems there aren't with the occasional great shot going in the top corner beyond the keeper's reach, it's with more general coaching issues like ball handling and decision making.
I'm convinced the GK 'problem' is going to disappear once participation levels improve.
And (kind of) saying there's too many goals is ridiculous when you see how the men's game is evolving its' rules more or less constantly to make goals more numerous.
It's too much like saying 'everything' is wrong imo. And buys into (at least) pushing the women towards having to do what the men want them to.
(I'm on weak ground saying that/anything much me self, obviously,. In reality.)
And (kind of) saying there's too many goals is ridiculous when you see how the men's game is evolving its' rules more or less constantly to make goals more numerous.
It's too much like saying 'everything' is wrong imo. And buys into (at least) pushing the women towards having to do what the men want them to.
(I'm on weak ground saying that/anything much me self, obviously,
. In reality.)Slightly odd question but was just watching the highlights of Brazil - Australia and noticed that the Brazil shirts had the five stars like the mens team have and didn't recall any other nation having the shirts show men's world cup successes. Is it common and I missed it until now or are the Brazilian women just playing in mens team shirts and the exception to the norm?
What was funny is the Brazilian scorer yesterday was pointing at the shirt badge as if it meant something and then go on to lose to Australia. Seemed a little cocky and arrogant and also Brazil have had some embarrassing tournaments and results. That's what comes to mind to me these days when thinking of Brazil so I found it funny when they were leading as it meant sod all and proved to be.
Takes a bit of getting used to, the men's game is still obviously faster. But I love it now, honest effort and lots of skills. Also because players are not so physicaly strong it takes even more skill and endeavour to press and pass etc. Amazing improvements in the women's game in a short time.
Kirsty Smith, Liz Arnot (and Jane Ross
) startCome on you reds!