England looked good because Japan were so poor? Is it not possible Japan played poorly because England did not allow them to play as they wished and put them under so much pressure they began to make lots of errors? Similarly, is it not possible that the US made Germany look so poor because of the pressure they placed them under? Teams do not simply play as they may want to in a match - they have to fight to earn the right to play as they wish; Germany and Japan lost their fights in their semi-finals, but only one of them lost the match. That happens, it's called football.
FWIW, the US remain for me the stand out team in the tournament and would be worthy winners. I doubt I will be watching them in the final though, as I couldn't give a XXXX for either them or Japan and the standard of the football just does not sufficiently compensate me for my lack of emotional involvement and attachment to either side.
Hard to say without a closer look, as obviously an event like this isn't really in keeping with usual late night fodder.
I do get the feeling that this tournament has overall been a success though, and certainly upped the profile of the women's game a little in our country.
Hard to say without a closer look, as obviously an event like this isn't really in keeping with usual late night fodder.
I do get the feeling that this tournament has overall been a success though, and certainly upped the profile of the women's game a little in our country.
The numbers were up on the previous England game, plus with it being played mid-week, that is such a great number.
It would be great if that leads into higher attendance at WSL games, and for more women and young girls to decide to play the game.
I think this tournament has certainly been talked about more than 2011, so that is another positive effect.
Interesting. I have seen figures for an earlier match which, as I recall it, showed there were far more online watching the game than watching on television, several times more I believe.
I bloody, loved the, curling in Sochi, that is to say, the Winter Olympics, I haven't actually visited, never would entertain watching it normally. Handball in the 2012 Olympics (summer) was another, that I got into, watching
Terrible way to bow out of the competition. Surprised at the lack of criticism for such a horrific mistake for the goal.
I think it has been treated by those of us who have supported the England team in the same way Liverpool fans have treated Gerard's slip which arguably cost them the championship.
Perhaps I wasn't quite precise enough. Only Jodie Taylor currently plays in the States but if you take a look at the career histories of the players, many have had spells in the U.S. and/or Europe. Many were forced abroad because our league was in the doldrums and it was hard to make a full time living but that's all changed with the revamped super league. It seems that nearly all our top players have come home again.
I agree that there's still much to work on but I honestly think we're better than we were and are progressing. We were highly rated going into Euro 2013 yet flopped terribly. Poor play and no cutting edge. I think it was generally agreed that we'd stood still at best whilst middling nations like Spain and Russia had caught us up.
If the top teams in Europe and even some of the middling ones outplay us and beat us convincingly in Euro 2017 then I might agree that we've gone backwards. But we should be serious contenders in that tournament and play some decent football. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_women's_national_football_team
As ever with these things, the 'success' depends on how well England/GB do.
If we'd gone out in the group stage then the profile of the tournament would have died a death over here.
The recently concluded Euro Under 21 championship fits that bill for me perfectly. I tried to watch the final and found it less engaging than an average television advert.
The recently concluded Euro Under 21 championship fits that bill for me perfectly. I tried to watch the final and found it less engaging than an average television advert.
Yep, agreed. I totally lost interest after England went out, so much so that I didn't even realise that the final was being played the other night, let alone knowing who was in it.
England looked good because Japan were so poor? Is it not possible Japan played poorly because England did not allow them to play as they wished and put them under so much pressure they began to make lots of errors? Similarly, is it not possible that the US made Germany look so poor because of the pressure they placed them under? Teams do not simply play as they may want to in a match - they have to fight to earn the right to play as they wish; Germany and Japan lost their fights in their semi-finals, but only one of them lost the match. That happens, it's called football.
Good points! Japan weren't at their best but it's not like their technique deserted them. We gave them a hard time. The Americans played that way in the 2011 final and, as I said before, nearly routed them in the first half. It was shocking finishing that let them down.
In fact that's one thing I've noticed in this tournament with the better teams, organised defences seem to have the upper hand on the strike forces. Most goals seem to come from silly mistakes or set pieces. The knockout round games Have been so cagey that not that many came from open play We need a new level of forward in the game.
Good points! Japan weren't at their best but it's not like their technique deserted them. We gave them a hard time. The Americans played that way in the 2011 final and, as I said before, nearly routed them in the first half. It was shocking finishing that let them down.
In fact that's one thing I've noticed in this tournament with the better teams, organised defences seem to have the upper hand on the strike forces. Most goals seem to come from silly mistakes or set pieces. The knockout round games Have been so cagey that not that many came from open play We need a new level of forward in the game.
France are an interesting case study of what you are saying. Their approach and attacking play is admirable, arguably the best in the world, but they lack a goal scorer who can perform reliably when under pressure. Just look, for instance, at the stats for their game against Colombia which they lost 2-0 - total dominance for goal attempts, nothing to show for it; similarly for their match against Germany, all they had to show for their numerous attacking efforts was one goal in open play heavily dependent on a deflection. That's one fortunate goal in open play in two lost games.
We know that many of the best players, such as Ronaldo, are also the players who practice most intensely and it is this that enables them to maintain their technique under the severest pressure. I don't see that happening in the women's game until, as I have mentioned a while ago, they have the opportunity to practice with the same intensity and at the same level as the best in the men's game. This, of course, applies in the same way at the other end of the pitch - to goal keepers. In fact, thinking about it, the goalies are not any different or worse than the goal strikers - the latter have poor technique under pressure and are very wasteful of goal chances, the former have poor technique under pressure and regularly commit howlers. Goal keeping errors tend to have much more immediate dramatic consequences than missing goal chances, so goalies get more stick from people like me ;-)
England looked good because Japan were so poor? Is it not possible Japan played poorly because England did not allow them to play as they wished and put them under so much pressure they began to make lots of errors? Similarly, is it not possible that the US made Germany look so poor because of the pressure they placed them under? Teams do not simply play as they may want to in a match - they have to fight to earn the right to play as they wish; Germany and Japan lost their fights in their semi-finals, but only one of them lost the match. That happens, it's called football.
True talk. I was surprised how shapeless Japan looked in the second half but as someone else said, they didn't lose their skill or technique. Plus England clearly improved match by match and played better than ever this morning. They looked as close to a clone of the USA as I've seen. I never rated Germany though. France largely walked through them and I didn't see their semi, but reports on here suggested they were poor again.
I still feel Japan will win the final (and now they have been on the rack it may help them - and the coach probably has to drop Ohno and start with their sub) but I wouldn't be surprised if the USA overwhelm them as England threatened to do.
What would be interesting is comparing the viewing figures in this country and overall in 2011 to now. The time zone effect on local viewing figures tend to balance out globally so I think it would be a fair comparison. USA viewing figures would be especialy telling. Comparisons of actual stadia attendance figures would be interesting as well.
What would be interesting is comparing the viewing figures in this country and overall in 2011 to now. The time zone effect on local viewing figures tend to balance out globally so I think it would be a fair comparison. USA viewing figures would be especialy telling. Comparisons of actual stadia attendance figures would be interesting as well.
Since 2011 far more people, I strongly suspect, are choosing in this country (I've no idea about elsewhere) to watch such matches online rather than on TV. If this is so, then straight comparisons focussing solely on television audience figures may distort what is in fact happening. Comparison of TV audience figures, in other words, may need to come with a health warning about the changing ways in which people are accessing live broadcasts of sporting events.
Shit way to lose but I just don't get why England were so exposed in the last minute like that, awful tactics. Thought the subs were shit as well, made no positive impact on the game.
Women's football is like the Olympics in that it'll never be something I could watch week in week out but I can get into the whole thing as an event, getting behind England etc.
The quality is pretty poor but I was entertained enough during England's last two games.
Comments
FWIW, the US remain for me the stand out team in the tournament and would be worthy winners. I doubt I will be watching them in the final though, as I couldn't give a XXXX for either them or Japan and the standard of the football just does not sufficiently compensate me for my lack of emotional involvement and attachment to either side.
Death threats and effigies, no doubt.
For such a late night/early morning slot, these are tremendous figures!
https://twitter.com/danroan/status/616530190286606336
It is not too late at all, you can catch them in action against Germany on Saturday in the 3/4th play off game.
Didn't millions watch that curling too?
Hard to say without a closer look, as obviously an event like this isn't really in keeping with usual late night fodder.
I do get the feeling that this tournament has overall been a success though, and certainly upped the profile of the women's game a little in our country.
The numbers were up on the previous England game, plus with it being played mid-week, that is such a great number.
It would be great if that leads into higher attendance at WSL games, and for more women and young girls to decide to play the game.
I think this tournament has certainly been talked about more than 2011, so that is another positive effect.
Interesting. I have seen figures for an earlier match which, as I recall it, showed there were far more online watching the game than watching on television, several times more I believe.
It wasn't that bad a mistake for the goal, you could see what she was attempting to do, she was just very unfortunate that the ball went where it did.
Most other times, I don't think that would have been the end result, it was one of those freak things, that happen on occasion.
,
I think it has been treated by those of us who have supported the England team in the same way Liverpool fans have treated Gerard's slip which arguably cost them the championship.
If we'd gone out in the group stage then the profile of the tournament would have died a death over here.
Perhaps I wasn't quite precise enough. Only Jodie Taylor currently plays in the States but if you take a look at the career histories of the players, many have had spells in the U.S. and/or Europe. Many were forced abroad because our league was in the doldrums and it was hard to make a full time living but that's all changed with the revamped super league. It seems that nearly all our top players have come home again.
I agree that there's still much to work on but I honestly think we're better than we were and are progressing. We were highly rated going into Euro 2013 yet flopped terribly. Poor play and no cutting edge. I think it was generally agreed that we'd stood still at best whilst middling nations like Spain and Russia had caught us up.
If the top teams in Europe and even some of the middling ones outplay us and beat us convincingly in Euro 2017 then I might agree that we've gone backwards. But we should be serious contenders in that tournament and play some decent football.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_women's_national_football_team
The recently concluded Euro Under 21 championship fits that bill for me perfectly. I tried to watch the final and found it less engaging than an average television advert.
Yep, agreed. I totally lost interest after England went out, so much so that I didn't even realise that the final was being played the other night, let alone knowing who was in it.
In fact that's one thing I've noticed in this tournament with the better teams, organised defences seem to have the upper hand on the strike forces. Most goals seem to come from silly mistakes or set pieces. The knockout round games Have been so cagey that not that many came from open play We need a new level of forward in the game.
Typical Jock reply... YAAWWNN.
France are an interesting case study of what you are saying. Their approach and attacking play is admirable, arguably the best in the world, but they lack a goal scorer who can perform reliably when under pressure. Just look, for instance, at the stats for their game against Colombia which they lost 2-0 - total dominance for goal attempts, nothing to show for it; similarly for their match against Germany, all they had to show for their numerous attacking efforts was one goal in open play heavily dependent on a deflection. That's one fortunate goal in open play in two lost games.
We know that many of the best players, such as Ronaldo, are also the players who practice most intensely and it is this that enables them to maintain their technique under the severest pressure. I don't see that happening in the women's game until, as I have mentioned a while ago, they have the opportunity to practice with the same intensity and at the same level as the best in the men's game. This, of course, applies in the same way at the other end of the pitch - to goal keepers. In fact, thinking about it, the goalies are not any different or worse than the goal strikers - the latter have poor technique under pressure and are very wasteful of goal chances, the former have poor technique under pressure and regularly commit howlers. Goal keeping errors tend to have much more immediate dramatic consequences than missing goal chances, so goalies get more stick from people like me ;-)
True talk. I was surprised how shapeless Japan looked in the second half but as someone else said, they didn't lose their skill or technique. Plus England clearly improved match by match and played better than ever this morning. They looked as close to a clone of the USA as I've seen. I never rated Germany though. France largely walked through them and I didn't see their semi, but reports on here suggested they were poor again.
I still feel Japan will win the final (and now they have been on the rack it may help them - and the coach probably has to drop Ohno and start with their sub) but I wouldn't be surprised if the USA overwhelm them as England threatened to do.
What would be interesting is comparing the viewing figures in this country and overall in 2011 to now. The time zone effect on local viewing figures tend to balance out globally so I think it would be a fair comparison. USA viewing figures would be especialy telling. Comparisons of actual stadia attendance figures would be interesting as well.
Since 2011 far more people, I strongly suspect, are choosing in this country (I've no idea about elsewhere) to watch such matches online rather than on TV. If this is so, then straight comparisons focussing solely on television audience figures may distort what is in fact happening. Comparison of TV audience figures, in other words, may need to come with a health warning about the changing ways in which people are accessing live broadcasts of sporting events.
Shit way to lose but I just don't get why England were so exposed in the last minute like that, awful tactics. Thought the subs were shit as well, made no positive impact on the game.
Women's football is like the Olympics in that it'll never be something I could watch week in week out but I can get into the whole thing as an event, getting behind England etc.
The quality is pretty poor but I was entertained enough during England's last two games.