13-0

[FVBrewerFan]

Since people seem to have a strong opinion about bunting to break-up a no-hitter, thought this may be interesting to discuss. For those unaware, USA women's World Cup team beat Thailand 13-0 in their first game of the tournament. Some in the media, former players, etc. are calling them out for POURING IT ON. Others say this is high level competition, and you play your best the entire game.

 

I'm fine with it.

[HiAndTight]

Since people seem to have a strong opinion about bunting to break-up a no-hitter, thought this may be interesting to discuss. For those unaware, USA women's World Cup team beat Thailand 13-0 in their first game of the tournament. Some in the media, former players, etc. are calling them out for POURING IT ON. Others say this is high level competition, and you play your best the entire game.

 

I'm fine with it.

 

 

This is the stupidest non-issue EVER. It's the media and twitter that care and I don't even believe they do. What's the FIRST tiebreaker in soccer? Goal differential. What did Thailand do to Indonesia? They won....13-0. But these women are supposed to what, not try when they get a big lead?

 

Bunting to break up a no-hitter is very different. This is another issue driven by twitter that's now getting media play...and it blows my mind.

 

How about we just enjoy USA Women playing great?

 

 

To be clear, I think this is a stupid controversy, not topic to be posted here.

[nate82]

Not a huge soccer fan but I don't remember people complaining when the original dream team just massacred everyone in the Olympics in basketball.

[nodakfan17]

I’m OK with the score, but not the endless celebrations.

[MrTPlush]

I was more annoyed by the coach trying to make it a gender issue pondering if a 10-0 win in the men’s cup would elicit the same reaction. The fact they celebrated every goal endlessly, I think that is classless more than anything. Clearly your opponent is quite inferior and you are going to win. It’s like celebrating over beating a bunch of children.

 

Regardless it is the opening game, I don’t exactly fault them for getting in a grove etc...did they just bust out starters the entire time? I’d think at some point 75% through the game you would protect your players and let the secondary players get some action. If the back ups start pouring it on, oh well.

 

If they played the starters the entire time I guess that could be somewhat lame, but if the number of goals later on in the tourney matters then sorry.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Can't the goals matter quite a bit in group stage? Obviously Thailand sucks, so what if the US is upset by someone else and every other teams puts a 10 spot on Thailand. It's the World Cup, score as much as you want.

 

And yes, people would be calling it out if it were the men. That was such a dumb point from the coach.

[OnTheBlack]

Can't the goals matter quite a bit in group stage? Obviously Thailand sucks, so what if the US is upset by someone else and every other teams puts a 10 spot on Thailand. It's the World Cup, score as much as you want.

 

And yes, people would be calling it out if it were the men. That was such a dumb point from the coach.

 

 

Didn't see what the coach had to say about it. This is a non-issue. I feel like Twitter's similar to wealth. The top 1 pct on twitter make up most posts and drive more nonsensical issues than the bottom 99 pct(or twitter users) and if something is trending on twitter, the news will follow.

 

When you use goal differential as a tie breaker, don't expect teams to try and not score more goals. Didn't we see one of the most shocking soccer game results this past year when Liverpool had to win by 4 to win? It's not like it's the same thing, but the point is, if Bareclona would have scored more goals prior to that, it would have been even more incredible.

 

And how many times do you get a chance to score a goal in a world cup? Kinda hard to blame these women for not...I guess missing the goals?

[FVBrewerFan]

Since people seem to have a strong opinion about bunting to break-up a no-hitter, thought this may be interesting to discuss. For those unaware, USA women's World Cup team beat Thailand 13-0 in their first game of the tournament. Some in the media, former players, etc. are calling them out for POURING IT ON. Others say this is high level competition, and you play your best the entire game.

 

I'm fine with it.

 

 

This is the stupidest non-issue EVER. It's the media and twitter that care and I don't even believe they do. What's the FIRST tiebreaker in soccer? Goal differential. What did Thailand do to Indonesia? They won....13-0. But these women are supposed to what, not try when they get a big lead?

 

Bunting to break up a no-hitter is very different. This is another issue driven by twitter that's now getting media play...and it blows my mind.

 

How about we just enjoy USA Women playing great?

 

 

To be clear, I think this is a stupid controversy, not topic to be posted here.

 

Since others are weighing in, including yourself, I guess it is a good topic to be pisted here. But you're welcome to apply for a job as a mod.

[areacodes]

Since people seem to have a strong opinion about bunting to break-up a no-hitter, thought this may be interesting to discuss. For those unaware, USA women's World Cup team beat Thailand 13-0 in their first game of the tournament. Some in the media, former players, etc. are calling them out for POURING IT ON. Others say this is high level competition, and you play your best the entire game.

 

I'm fine with it.

 

 

This is the stupidest non-issue EVER. It's the media and twitter that care and I don't even believe they do. What's the FIRST tiebreaker in soccer? Goal differential. What did Thailand do to Indonesia? They won....13-0. But these women are supposed to what, not try when they get a big lead?

 

Bunting to break up a no-hitter is very different. This is another issue driven by twitter that's now getting media play...and it blows my mind.

 

How about we just enjoy USA Women playing great?

 

 

To be clear, I think this is a stupid controversy, not topic to be posted here.

 

Since others are weighing in, including yourself, I guess it is a good topic to be pisted here. But you're welcome to apply for a job as a mod.

 

He was saying the controversy is stupid, but it was still something legitimate to post.

 

To the post about if the starters were still in. I believe you only get 3 subs in soccer, so most of the starters would be in for the whole game.

[KeithStone53151]

Agree with most, goal differential is HUGE in group stage. Especially in this situation where one team is just dreadful and everyone is going to pound them. And regarding celebrations, if they want to celebrate that's their choice. Celebrating your goals in soccer is extremely common, there was never ever any sort of unwritten rules about celebrating like in baseball...so you can't even point to something like that as a reason to not do it. I find it ridiculous that twitter/media/anyone is giving US team grief for pouring it on for goal differential reasons.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

When Alex Morgan retires her little career summary will have a section for World Cup goals. Nobody will really remember that she scored 5 vs. Thailand, it'll just be a nice boost to her "World Cup" stats. Have at it.

[JimH5]

The score is fine. It's competition at the highest level and to hold back does no favors to Thailand.

 

Alabama football won conference games in the past few years by the scores of 59-0; 66-3; 62-7 and 51-3. The original Dream Team in the 1992 Olympics won all 8 men's basketball games by an average score of 117-75, including 116-48 vs. Angola.

 

No tears were shed in these cases, and if those scores were fine, then so is 13-0.

[brwrsfan]

I was more annoyed by the coach trying to make it a gender issue pondering if a 10-0 win in the men’s cup would elicit the same reaction. The fact they celebrated every goal endlessly, I think that is classless more than anything. Clearly your opponent is quite inferior and you are going to win. It’s like celebrating over beating a bunch of children.

 

Regardless it is the opening game, I don’t exactly fault them for getting in a grove etc...did they just bust out starters the entire time? I’d think at some point 75% through the game you would protect your players and let the secondary players get some action. If the back ups start pouring it on, oh well.

 

If they played the starters the entire time I guess that could be somewhat lame, but if the number of goals later on in the tourney matters then sorry.

 

THIS. I don't understand why/how this became a "girls vs guys" issue. NOBODY brought that up except the coaches and players. Just seemed completely unwarranted to start saying things like "if this was the men's team, nobody would care".

 

I have no problem with them winning 13-0, goal differential matters. That's all there is to it.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

This same pouring it on conversation would be happening if it were men. They're just wrong there. Usually there is merit to those arguments, but people would be saying it with men.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

It's also funny to point out that the Thailand national team (yes, the women) beat Indonesia last year, you guessed it, 13-0.

[Baldkin]

If they played the starters the entire time I guess that could be somewhat lame, but if the number of goals later on in the tourney matters then sorry.

 

You're only allowed 3 subs during World Cup games. So, 8 starters played the entire game.

 

Anyway, excited to watch the Ladies on Sunday. Might try to head down to the Deer District if they are putting the game on outside. Looks to be a beautiful day here in MKE.

[xisxisxis]

Media?

 

What really is the media anymore? There are so many outlets today with cable/online/etc that the talent making up the media has been so diluted that 90% of those that are "media" are crap at best. The good thing about growing up with 3/4 channels was that there was quality across the board. More channels/outlets just means more crap. Soon everyone will have their own streaming outlet and 0.000000001% will be quality. So I don't care about what most of the "media" has to say.

 

Twitter?

 

This is a generational thing as young people seem to care about what happens on Twitter. This old man could care less. Social media propagates the lowest common denominator of human behavior. One person's stupidity is amplified, while 99.999% of the others are ignored. Math is important. If 10 people complain it's somehow a big deal, when there are literally millions who don't object, but we don't put them into proportion... But Twitter is great, everyone has a voice... yawn...

 

former players

 

If any group has a disproportionate amount of attention placed on them it is former players. Many spend vast amounts of their time perfecting their performance in a game when the rest of us are going to class and, well, learning things... This is likely the least enlightened group out there.

 

THIS. I don't understand why/how this became a "girls vs guys" issue. NOBODY brought that up except the coaches and players. Just seemed completely unwarranted to start saying things like "if this was the men's team, nobody would care".

In case you haven't seen it, many of the women's players are suing the US Soccer federation because the men's team (who've done nothing, but embarrass the US with their international play) gets better pay, treatment, facilities, etc. while the women's team, which has mostly been the preeminent female soccer team on the planet, has been short changed across the board. I can see where they may be over-reacting, but as JimH pointed out, the men's basketball team was never called out for their lopsided wins. The women, rightfully, have a chip on their shoulders and if you look at what they've accomplished vs. the men's team and then look at how they are treated by the US soccer federation, it's clear to see why they are touchy about what they see as a double standard.

[nate82]

I don't think this is a Men's versus Women's thing but more of a there is nothing really going on in sports. You had two blah teams in the Stanley Cup and a stale NBA Finals (it would be stale if the Bucks made it). The NFL is still a few months away and the talking heads have to talk about something.

 

Normally we don't have to see this stupid running up the score ramblings until the college football season starts.

 

The Badgers were accused of this a lot when they would beat up on the cupcake teams. It has died down a little bit but still nauseating when it does get brought up.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The men's team may embarrass us but they are paid better for reasons other than being men.

[KeithStone53151]

In case you haven't seen it, many of the women's players are suing the US Soccer federation because the men's team (who've done nothing, but embarrass the US with their international play) gets better pay, treatment, facilities, etc. while the women's team, which has mostly been the preeminent female soccer team on the planet, has been short changed across the board. I can see where they may be over-reacting, but as JimH pointed out, the men's basketball team was never called out for their lopsided wins. The women, rightfully, have a chip on their shoulders and if you look at what they've accomplished vs. the men's team and then look at how they are treated by the US soccer federation, it's clear to see why they are touchy about what they see as a double standard.

 

I wouldn't say rightfully. The women are paid less primarily because women's soccer generates far less revenue than men's soccer. Success is irrelevant. If women got paid a lower percentage of total revenue generated than percentage for men, that's a better argument in the women's favor(I don't know whether this is true or not, if it is...then I'll agree the women are getting screwed over). Right or wrong, the general public is more interested in men's soccer. It therefore generates more revenue and leads to the men getting paid more.

 

I hate seeing trash like this argument above. You insinuate there are a bunch of rich greedy men in charge of the pay and huddled in the corner talking about how they should screw over the women simply to screw them over. It's not 1960 anymore, that argument is very out of date.

[KeithStone53151]

https://www.nbcsports.com/northwest/world-cup/equal-pay-womens-world-cup-players-seriously

[homer]

 

I hate seeing trash like this argument above. You insinuate there are a bunch of rich greedy men in charge of the pay and huddled in the corner talking about how they should screw over the women simply to screw them over. It's not 1960 anymore, that argument is very out of date.

 

Maybe not in World Cup soccer but it still exists. And it's not simply to screw over women but to make more money by paying them less.

[xisxisxis]

 

I hate seeing trash like this argument above. You insinuate there are a bunch of rich greedy men in charge of the pay and huddled in the corner talking about how they should screw over the women simply to screw them over. It's not 1960 anymore, that argument is very out of date.

 

Maybe not in World Cup soccer but it still exists. And it's not simply to screw over women but to make more money by paying them less.

Keith, I think your response says more than mine. Nowhere did I assign a blame or even imply the conclusion you came to. In fact, I mostly agree with Homer, it exists because they can get away with paying the women less. I don't believe nor did I include anywhere "between the lines" that there is an active attempt to discriminate against the women. If they could pay the men less they would (not that I am advocating that as a solution - I would prefer to raise the underpaid and maybe stop paying the "execs" so much money).

 

While the revenue argument is thrown around, I don't see the relevance (especially the article that was linked above). This isn't a private/professional sport/business. This is no different than the Olympics - a group of athletes representing their country. The revenue the teams bring in doesn't come close to covering costs. The mens team secured $8M for the US federation for the 2014 world cup and $0 for the 2018. The cost of maintaining a team over 4 years far surpasses the $8M income and without an appearance in 2018 there's a revenue hit. These are subsidized and it's the cost of trying to maintain world dominance in another area. The fact this is a group of athletes representing our country I think there's a good argument that there should be equitable treatment across the board. Especially when one team is presenting the US in a positive light to the rest of the world and the other not so much.

[KeithStone53151]

Keith, I think your response says more than mine. Nowhere did I assign a blame or even imply the conclusion you came to. In fact, I mostly agree with Homer, it exists because they can get away with paying the women less. I don't believe nor did I include anywhere "between the lines" that there is an active attempt to discriminate against the women. If they could pay the men less they would (not that I am advocating that as a solution - I would prefer to raise the underpaid and maybe stop paying the "execs" so much money).

 

While the revenue argument is thrown around, I don't see the relevance (especially the article that was linked above). This isn't a private/professional sport/business. This is no different than the Olympics - a group of athletes representing their country. The revenue the teams bring in doesn't come close to covering costs. The mens team secured $8M for the US federation for the 2014 world cup and $0 for the 2018. The cost of maintaining a team over 4 years far surpasses the $8M income and without an appearance in 2018 there's a revenue hit. These are subsidized and it's the cost of trying to maintain world dominance in another area. The fact this is a group of athletes representing our country I think there's a good argument that there should be equitable treatment across the board. Especially when one team is presenting the US in a positive light to the rest of the world and the other not so much.

 

"The women, rightfully, have a chip on their shoulders and if you look at what they've accomplished vs. the men's team and then look at how they are treated by the US soccer federation, it's clear to see why they are touchy about what they see as a double standard."

 

That's the one I took issue with. And revenue is 100% relevant. Saying it isn't is a bit crazy. Also, the $8 million you are referring to...my understanding is that's what the players were paid. Not what the US Federation took in. And that's not their only source of revenue. Every friendly match, every world cup qualifier, sponsorships, etc. It's seriously as simple as dollars and cents. If the men's team generates a ton more revenue than the women's team, there's that much more revenue that can be spent on facilities, training, salaries, etc. What you're talking about is the men's team revenue subsidizing women's facilities, training, salaries, etc. Which frankly, I don't really care either way. In fact, it probably wouldn't be THAT unreasonable to use some revenue from men's to subsidize the women's program to some degree. All I'm saying, is the argument is trash...and in this case, there are acceptable and justifiable reasons for the difference in spending. If blame must be placed, it should go on the millions on millions of people more inclined to tune in to men's world cup than women's world cup. Believe me, if viewership were equal...sponsorships, advertisements, ticket prices, and in turn...revenue...would even out. You can't force people to like/watch equally.

[jerichoholicninja]

It seems like the amount of goals scored is a relevant number for advancing in the tournament. So there should be no issue with this. If the score was irrelevant other than who wins the game, there could be an argument.