Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I don’t think there’s much disagreement with your main point, which is that several players were better, but leadership counts for something in a knockout tournament like this. When the US were given that penalty in the second half of a scoreless game yesterday, who do you want taking that penalty if not Rapinoe? It’s such a huge moment, and there’s value in having a player out there who is up to the task.
Ditto. Outside of the obvious indirect (pass back to keeper), it seems almost up to the refs level. By that i mean pro level refs are quick to call dangerous/obstruction type calls as a PK. Low level (less confident) refs often lean toward indirect, on anything outside of a handball. No proof here. Just one dope's (and former low-confidence ref's ) observation.
Agreed. She was very cool under pressure in difficult situations and nailed all 3 penalties. That counts for something.
Not disagreeing with any of these. And who knows if anyone else could have taken the PKs in this or any situation since she took all three. England rotated through three kickers since they all missed, so being able to take one is huge. Every team needs a leader like this.
Argentina's entire federation is a complete mess. Despite that, Messi led them to the finals of the 2014 World Cup where they lost 1-0 in extra time due to a great goal by swimsuit-boner-man. Messi won the Golden Ball but a lot of people disagreed with that selection.
Pretty much, IMO. There's half a year left but I figure there's only a handful of people left who could beat her given the stuff that's left on the calendar. Tiger if he wins the British Open or the FedEx Cup, maybe a baseball player if they pull off a miraculous combo or team/individual performance in the second half (like if Yelich posts 60+ HRs and leads the Brewers to the World Series). And there's always the possibility of some form of activism in response to some forthcoming crisis, but that's a big part of Rapinoe's case too.
I thought about him too. But he skipped a bunch of the regular season and didn't do anything amazing stat or milestone wise, arguably only won a title because of the Durant/Klay injuries, and maybe most importantly they've been giving it to NBA guys a lot recently, three times in the last seven years including last year.
Yeah, I think Rapinoe is the right choice. Tiger would have to win the Open and I don't think that's going to happen (but I also didn't think he'd win the Masters, so the hell do I know).
I think so. In '99 they gave it to the entire women's team. That team had lots of great players but no real standouts like Rapinoe. Neither the tournament top scorer nor top player that year were US players.
Normally I agree with you. Always have argued the MVP isnt necessarily the best player. Should be 2 different awards. BUT the Golden Ball (currently commercially termed "adidas Golden Ball") for best player, first awarded in 1982; says nothing about most valuable. Awarded to the best player. Semantics maybe. But there is a difference.
I have no issue with her as SI Sportsperson. She is the leader on the team winning the title, golden boot winner, activist. That is what the sportsperson of the year is about.
isn't golden ball determined by goals, assists, per/minutes played? I didn't think it was subjective.
Golden Boot is the leading scorer. Golden Ball is tourney's best player.
I seem to remember Mia Hamm being the star player of that team, and that she was a pretty high-quality player in her own right.
seeing as you are one of the NWSL fans in here, what do you think of the mild controversy brewing about the cash grab victory tour that is causing the women to miss even more NWSL games? I have seen lots of comments both for and against.
I think he meant in the tournament itself, not in general.
Well 1: I am an absolute n00b when it comes to soccer and the mechanics of pay currently in place. I've learned a great deal just from reading your posts about the subject alone, so I don't consider myself anywhere remotely qualified to answer your questions.
ah- thanks.
He was, but I think he was referring to the tournament itself, not in general. Mia was good but not great in the 99 tournament. She did not score in any knock out round games.
Just to be clear when I said cash grab, I was referring to US Soccer not the women themselves. US Soccer makes good money on these type of games. The women get their normal CBA assigned pay for friendlies.
Hamm was probably the best player on the team, but was very media shy. She wouldn't do late night shows and hated media appearances. Akers, Scurry, Milbrett, Chastain and Foudy were all on that team, with Chastain getting the big media attention when she took off her top after scoring the winning penalty in the final (Hamm shot 4th, leaving the game winner for the younger Chastain). Hamm did not score much in the tournament, did not even lead the US in scoring, and both the golden ball and boot were won by non-US players.
Here is a blast from the past. How many of you remember this NIKE commercial? Imagine this being made today with the creep factor performance Kevin Garnett gives
Here is a blast from the past. How many of you remember this NIKE commercial? Imagine this being made today with the creep factor performance Kevin Garnett gives
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37BRG7LUnow
I don't remember that one but its awesome and bad for so many reasons.
https://www.espn.com/soccer/united-states/story/3908663/ussf-says-uswnt-has-made-more-than-the-men?src=com
I think US Soccer is making a mistake. First line of defense - in court/arbitration - should be that these are not equals. Sure they play the same game, but the men are objectively better. This is not a situation of "equal pay for equal work". This is like a low level manager complaining she does not make as much as a male senior manager - since they are both managers...
They essentially ARE making that argument though. They boiled down the financials to show that the men's games makes, on average, more than double what the women's games do. That even though the women played far more games than the men, that the men actually earned more revenue in the games they did play. No rational judge is going to view them as equals when it comes to pay based on revenue.
What they should do, is have the women's team play the men's team each January, and split the annual revenues on the basis of goals scored in that game.
I don't see that as the "same" argument - it in essence says, "assuming they are equal" the men generate more revenue, and thus are paid more.
the USWNT representative response to this was "please ignore the club salaries, they are not appropriate to consider".
Nice! I just bought tickets to take my 10 y.o. daughter to the game in Charlotte in October. Can't wait!.
I don't know anything about the history of this whole issue, but reading up a bit today after seeing a headline. According to this article:
So if the total revenue actually is greater (I have no idea if this is accurate and/or the full scope of the situation) for women, why shouldn't they be compensated more in the collective bargaining agreement? Is an issue that putting on twice as many events leads to much higher costs for the women to generate that revenue, so there is actually less to distribute? I'm sure that there are many nuances to this whole situation.
I tend to focus on the on-field side of this sport... others here have greater breadth of knowledge/nuance on this- but... IMO, as long as the WNT salaries are paid by US Soccer, it's going to be tough to apples anything.
meaning essentially the difference between revenue and gross profit? i guess not for some, but when i see it reported that way and assume that revenue is driving the conversation, it seems like it might be a nuance. though i was more talking about other nuances in the financial structure that i am not aware of.
