OT: Aussies Cheeky Bunch or Sore Losers

[RockyMTblue2]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/fif...-just-arent-that-good/ar-BBkTiJA?ocid=u220dhp

Official Website dumps on USA Team.

 

[sarals24]

Stay classy, Australia.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

It's where "women glow and men thunder" don't you know. I think vegemite sandwiches make everyone thunder.

 

[ThisJustIn]

Too bad the Aussies "ran out of gas." You'd think such a serious side would understand the importance of fitness against a "not so good" US team. No Oi Oi Oi here, just Oiy vey.

 

[stamfordhusky]

They said this:

The US certainly like to talk a good game. The reality is they play a fairly rudimentary, bog-standard 4-4-2, were short of ideas going forward and outmanoeuvred tactically. ‘Play it long and look for the head of Wambach’ seems the default game-plan for a team stuck in the past.

World football has moved, in case Jill Ellis hasn’t noticed. US were outplayed by a better, smarter footballing side – who were also without two certain starters in Polkinghorne and keeper Williams – before the Aussies ran out of gas.

US relied on the individual brilliance of Megan Rapinoe to win them this game. And Hope Solo in the US goal saved the Americans on numerous occasions in front of a vocal ‘home’ crowd in Canada. If it wasn’t for this world-class keeper, this could’ve been a different result.


I agree with almost all of it, although I don't think the Aussies outplayed the U.S. in the second half. They clearly did so in the first half and deserved to have a lead at halftime.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

I agree with almost all of it, although I don't think the Aussies outplayed the U.S. in the second half. They clearly did so in the first half and deserved to have a lead at halftime.

Yeah, but you don't publish these things - you shout and curse in the locker room! I can't imagine the next "friendly" between the US and the Aussies.

 

[Nuyoika]

So given all that was said... you lose by 2 goals? Shame on you for sucking even more than you think the US does. Just goes to show opinions don't equal squat when competition starts. Let the record show YOU LOST! Suck it up and move on. If your post game speech consisted of what was said here, I would gather you most likely will lose to another team that you deem to be dumber and worse than the US. What a tacky bunch of losers.

 

[sarals24]

Soo....they lost because they were less talented? And the US won because they have better players and capitalized on their chances? OK? I mean...that's like saying the Cavs would have lost last night except for the brilliance of Lebron and the hustle of Dellevadova. Yes...those are the things that make you win games.

 

[meyers7]

They said this:

The US certainly like to talk a good game. The reality is they play a fairly rudimentary, bog-standard 4-4-2, were short of ideas going forward and outmanoeuvred tactically. ‘Play it long and look for the head of Wambach’ seems the default game-plan for a team stuck in the past.

World football has moved, in case Jill Ellis hasn’t noticed. US were outplayed by a better, smarter footballing side – who were also without two certain starters in Polkinghorne and keeper Williams – before the Aussies ran out of gas.

US relied on the individual brilliance of Megan Rapinoe to win them this game. And Hope Solo in the US goal saved the Americans on numerous occasions in front of a vocal ‘home’ crowd in Canada. If it wasn’t for this world-class keeper, this could’ve been a different result.


I agree with almost all of it, although I don't think the Aussies outplayed the U.S. in the second half. They clearly did so in the first half and deserved to have a lead at halftime.

Agree, it was pretty accurate.

USA had Rapinoe, Solo and were better conditioned. Other than that, the Aussies outplayed the US.

 

[meyers7]

Soo....they lost because they were less talented?

No, they didn't say that. Read.

 

[Bonpland]

The Aussie's played well early on and had great opportunities, but as we've seen over the years following the Huskies, a superior team will wear you down and then take advantage of the resulting chances that develop because of it.

The Aussies didn't feel "blown away" so they lamented by griping that the "USA isn't that good."

Kids do it all the time when they get beat by a better team. The Australian National Team should be mature enough to be beyond those less sophisticated reactions.

The only team that I follow more ardently than the WNT is our team, and so I was happy to see the game go the way that it did, but I thought the Aussie's put on a spirited and aggressive performance and should have walk away disappointed but content that they had left it all on the field.

It's a shame that their follow-up comments cast their previous day's effort in such a bad light.

 

[CocoHusky]

Agree, it was pretty accurate.
Other than that, the Aussies outplayed the US.

Bill Paracells said: 'you are what your record says you are". The game result should tell you who outplayed who. Unless this concept of outplaying an opponent is unique to soccer I don't understand how Aussies outplayed the US.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Bill Paracells said: 'you are what your record says you are". The game result should tell you who outplayed who. Unless this concept of outplaying an opponent is unique to soccer I don't understand how Aussies outplayed the US.

I guess an analogy would be in football where one team has far more yards on the ground and in the air but comes up short. The Aussies played well but in the "red zone" not so much. But I agree with you and Bill.

 

[Nuyoika]

Bill Paracells said: 'you are what your record says you are". The game result should tell you who outplayed who. Unless this concept of outplaying an opponent is unique to soccer I don't understand how Aussies outplayed the US.

I agree. I never get the logic in these statements. Probably because there is none. I liken this to the conference talk in WCBB. You hear teams tout how tough their conference is then they get blown out by teams in lesser conferences and in the post game what do they say? "Well we play in the toughest conference, so we will be ok." But didn't you play in the conference before you got blown out too? So the Aussies say, "We outplayed them." Didn't you just lose? Then they can say well we didn't have two of our best players. Then we could counter with well if Alex Morgan was playing 60+ minutes we would've won 4-1. It is all relative. It is far easier to pat yourself on the back and say we played better but took a loss than to say, we knew their game plan, they played it, it's old fashion and uninspired and we still lost.

 

[Orangutan]

I agree with almost all of it, although I don't think the Aussies outplayed the U.S. in the second half. They clearly did so in the first half and deserved to have a lead at halftime.

I turned it on in the 51st or so minute. I'd say it was a pretty even game from then until Press's goal. After that and especially after Heath came in, USA was clearly in control.

Frankly, Australia's defending was abysmal on the 3rd goal. Rapinoe picked it up at halfway and no one even attempted to tackle her. The defenders just backed off until she was in shooting position.

Also, talking off the Aussies running out of gas...it's a 90 minute game! Always has been! Running out of gas is a very poor excuse. They either should have prepared better or should have chosen a game plan that they can sustain for 90 minutes.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Weird that FS1 on DTV (219) is showing a replay of this game Thursday AM.

here's a background article leading up to this week's games that I thought was pretty good.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/06/us/us-womens-soccer-world-cup/index.html

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Frankly, Australia's defending was abysmal on the 3rd goal. Rapinoe picked it up at halfway and no one even attempted to tackle her. The defenders just backed off until she was in shooting position.

Yes, the defender just ran along off her left shoulder and could easily have stuck a foot in there. That's not outplaying anyone is it? I wonder if the Astroturf (fear of turf burn) led the defender not to tackle her?

 

[RockyMTblue2]

My bad:


Friday, June 12: USA vs. Sweden, 8 p.m., FOX

Tuesday, June 16: USA vs. Nigeria, 8 p.m., FOX


Monday, June 22: USA vs. TBD, 8 p.m., FOX Sports 1

Friday, June 26: USA vs. TBD, 7:30 p.m., FOX

Tuesday, June 30: USA vs. TBD, 7 p.m., FOX

Sunday, July 5: USA vs. TBD, 7 p.m., FOX

 

[meyers7]

Bill Paracells said: 'you are what your record says you are". The game result should tell you who outplayed who. Unless this concept of outplaying an opponent is unique to soccer I don't understand how Aussies outplayed the US.

It is sort of unique to soccer. You may not understand. In soccer you can outplay an opponent and still lose. Nature of the game.

It wasn't the whole game the Aussies outplayed the USA. Later in the game, when the USA fitness kicked in, the USA pretty much had the run of play. But it was mostly because of fitness, not because the USA was technically or tactically better.

But, true, the final score is really the only thing that matters (for a particular game). However, for future games, playing the same way can cause problems against a different opponent. That's all anyone is saying here.

 

[meyers7]

Yes, the defender just ran along off her left shoulder and could easily have stuck a foot in there. That's not outplaying anyone is it?

Pretty much an example of the fitness issue and the brilliance of Rapinoe.

I wonder if the Astroturf (fear of turf burn) led the defender not to tackle her?

No, they slid plenty on the turf. It's not Astro Turf anymore anyway. (FieldTurf is much improved, but still not as good as real grass.) Again probably more a fitness issue and not wanting to get beat and let her in. Also probably waiting, hoping for help which never came. Rapinoe had intercepted a pass and the Aussies were a bit caught out. Probably also assumed she was going to make a pass and was caught by surprise (as was I) when she shot. Very nice play by Rapinoe.

 

[Nuyoika]

It is sort of unique to soccer. You may not understand. In soccer you can outplay an opponent and still lose. Nature of the game.

It wasn't the whole game the Aussies outplayed the USA. Later in the game, when the USA fitness kicked in, the USA pretty much had the run of play. But it was mostly because of fitness, not because the USA was technically or tactically better.

But, true, the final score is really the only thing that matters (for a particular game). However, for future games, playing the same way can cause problems against a different opponent. That's all anyone is saying here.

For future games the Aussies should plan on playing for 90 minutes. Then maybe, just maybe they can outplay a team to a victory.

 

[meyers7]

Weird that FS1 on DTV (219) is showing a replay of this game Thursday AM.

They had a replay on yesterday too.

 

[EricLA]

It never ceases to amaze me how world soccer can move in a technical/tactical direction that seems superior to the US strategy, while we still rely (in this case) on superior fitness to win games.

Having said that I will readily admit I don't follow World Cup soccer nearly as much as other sports so I'm curious - is the US really behind other teams in their tactics, or are we pretty much on par with where soccer strategies have gone in the past several years? In the past were we just not talented enough? In games I've seen, men especially, it's pretty clear the US strategy is to try to strike fast with a lob to a streaking offensive player, while other teams rely on passing and execution to score goals.

 

[meyers7]

For future games the Aussies should plan on playing for 90 minutes. Then maybe, just maybe they can outplay a team to a victory.

Again, I'm not sure why you guys are not able to comprehend this. You see it all the time with UCONN women. Some teams (not very many) can play with UCONN for awhile, but eventually their fitness takes over. It's much more decisive in soccer because you just can't sub when people get tired.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

It never ceases to amaze me how world soccer can move in a technical/tactical direction that seems superior to the US strategy, while we still rely (in this case) on superior fitness to win games.

Well, you say potatoe I say potato ...err, it's hard when you don't say it, but I hope you get my drift. To me where "the world" is moving can be super dull football, 'cuz it is highly cautious, defensive stuff that goes on interminably. A game between two lesser teams the other day was painful in that regard. Let's pull it back and pass it 7 yards 17 times and try to advance beyond out own 20 yards line again, oops no, repeat, etc. the US plays fast, dramatic, exciting football and has earned viewership with it.