Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Sports, Hobbies & Interests => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on March 16, 2023, 06:03:30 PM
-
Fifa drops Visit Saudi sponsorship for tournament, or maybe there was none to start with if you believe Infantino.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64979989
-
Go, Haiti.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66005504
-
And starts tomorrow.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66132739
-
Details of when the matches are being shown
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65962749
-
And kicked off with a big win for New Zealand
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66241739
-
And kicked off with a big win for New Zealand
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66241739
Norway are ranked twelfth and New Zealand are ranked 26th. A big win indeed.
-
And a less surprising win for Australia
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66241420
-
Win for England, if a far from convincing one
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66265569
-
After New Zealand's first match giant killing, they are then slain by the Philippines
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66290027
-
After New Zealand's first match giant killing, they are then slain by the Philippines
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66290027
I can't see them beating Switzerland. They are probably not going to progress.
-
I can't see them beating Switzerland. They are probably not going to progress.
Though a draw and a 1-0 win for Norway would allow NZ to qualify as well.
-
Though a draw and a 1-0 win for Norway would allow NZ to qualify as well.
Hence my use of the word "probably". :)
-
Big shock by Nigeria for Australia making it hard for one of the hosts to progress from the group stage
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66290741
-
Big shock by Nigeria for Australia making it hard for one of the hosts to progress from the group stage
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66290741
If they beat Canada, they will go through. They can also go through with a draw, but only if Ireland beat Nigeria by two goals.
New Zealand can also get through with a draw as long as The Philippines don't beat Norway.
-
Another narrow win for England, played a bit better at the start, but also have lost Walsh to what looks like a bad injury.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/football/65468314
-
Another narrow win for England, played a bit better at the start, but also have lost Walsh to what looks like a bad injury.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/football/65468314
A draw is sufficient to go through, or if the other match today ends in a draw, we go through.
The description on the BBC website suggests Walsh has done her knee, so it's probably the end of the tournament for her.
-
Good performance from Sweden, though the whole concept of a corner seemed to confuse the Italians.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66347280
-
Walsh's injury not ACL, and she might be able to play in thrlebknockout stages.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66347697
-
New Zealand out. Under UEFA rules where head to head is the first criterion, they would have gone through.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66352248
-
Big win for Columbia over Germany
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66352255
-
And great win for Japan over Spain
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66357306
-
Australia and Nigeria through, and one will play England if they qualify.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66357325
-
USA go through in second after a bit of a scare. Likely to face Sweden in the knock out stage.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66369075
-
USA go through in second after a bit of a scare. Likely to face Sweden in the knock out stage.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66369075
Interesting that none of the pre tournament favourites are firing on all cylinders yet.
-
Interesting that none of the pre tournament favourites are firing on all cylinders yet.
Spain are still showing as second favourites despite losing 4-0 to Japan yesterday . I suspect it's not a very liquid market.
-
Spain are still showing as second favourites despite losing 4-0 to Japan yesterday . I suspect it's not a very liquid market.
As I write, England are 3-0 up against China.
-
As I write, England are 3-0 up against China.
And they are now showing as favourites to win the World Cup
-
England 6 - China 1 - wow!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66369572
-
England 6 - China 1 - wow!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66369572
I think that must be the first really convincing performance by one of the favourites. Nigeria next.
-
South Africa beat Italy to go through with Sweden
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66380363
-
Jamaica and France go through, Brazil out, meaning Marta will not become the first player to score in 6 World Cups.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66380370
-
Germany out, Columbia and Morocco through.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66391732
-
Japan and Spain through to quarter finals
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66404312
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66404305
-
Sweden put out USA on dramatic penalties.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66414350
And Netherlands through
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66414642
-
England squeak through
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66420237
-
Bit easier for Australia
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66420244
-
Columbia up next for England
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66424838
-
France complete the quarter finals.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66425335
-
Reaction to USA's pre tournament advert
https://www.news.com.au/sport/football/us-soccer-team-roasted-over-incredibly-cocky-world-cup-ad/news-story/ae8ad62d56fb4d371bb91baecb525ab5
-
Lauren Janes banned for 2 matches
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66449456
-
Lauren Janes banned for 2 matches
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66449456
Something of a surprise - the consensus in the immediate commentary was that it was the type of offence that would attract a 3 match ban and rule her out of the rest of the tournament.
Whilst it didn't seem a particularly vicious foul, it was completely unnecessary, I think she's been lucky to only get the two. That said, i do hope she gets to play again, not just because it means England are in the final, but because she's been one of the brighter flashes in the team.
O.
-
Something of a surprise - the consensus in the immediate commentary was that it was the type of offence that would attract a 3 match ban and rule her out of the rest of the tournament.
Whilst it didn't seem a particularly vicious foul, it was completely unnecessary, I think she's been lucky to only get the two. That said, i do hope she gets to play again, not just because it means England are in the final, but because she's been one of the brighter flashes in the team.
O.
I think the obvious contrition helped. I suspect that if they had tried to fight it, it would have been longer.
-
Outy,
Something of a surprise - the consensus in the immediate commentary was that it was the type of offence that would attract a 3 match ban and rule her out of the rest of the tournament.
Whilst it didn't seem a particularly vicious foul, it was completely unnecessary, I think she's been lucky to only get the two. That said, i do hope she gets to play again, not just because it means England are in the final, but because she's been one of the brighter flashes in the team.
Perhaps, but it looked more like a deliberate step than a hard stamp to me. Still unacceptable of course, but perhaps the reasoning was that they had to keep the three-match ban option for cases when there was a hard stamp or similar?
-
I think the obvious contrition helped. I suspect that if they had tried to fight it, it would have been longer.
i'm not suggesting that she was faking her apology, but they all publicly apologise after things like this, I'm not sure this would (or should) make a difference - rather, the lack of any sort of contrition I think would probably have stood against her.
Perhaps, but it looked more like a deliberate step than a hard stamp to me. Still unacceptable of course, but perhaps the reasoning was that they had to keep the three-match ban option for cases when there was a hard stamp or similar?
I'd agree it was more in the region of a 'studs-first nudge' than a proper stamp. From memory the laws of the game are fairly loosely phrased, so there's a degree of latitude to the interpretation, I guess.
O.
-
Outy,
Perhaps, but it looked more like a deliberate step than a hard stamp to me. Still unacceptable of course, but perhaps the reasoning was that they had to keep the three-match ban option for cases when there was a hard stamp or similar?
It seemed to me to be more petulant rather than overtly malicious and dangerous so probably the sanction is about right.
-
Outy,
Perhaps, but it looked more like a deliberate step than a hard stamp to me. Still unacceptable of course, but perhaps the reasoning was that they had to keep the three-match ban option for cases when there was a hard stamp or similar?
Doesn't really matter how innocuous it was. She trod on a player on the ground and I'm surprised it is not more serious. I gather there may have been a certain amount of provocation, but I didn't see the match. Maybe that helped.
-
Sweden to play Spain in semi final. Not sure why they set up the draw so that teams that played in the groups could meet in the semi final, e.g. Spain and Japan
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66457723
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66458146
-
Sweden to play Spain in semi final. Not sure why they set up the draw so that teams that played in the groups could meet in the semi final, e.g. Spain and Japan
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66457723
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66458146
Because it's considered better than the possibility that first and second from one group meet in the final, probably.
-
Australia into semi final
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66470396
-
Australia into semi final
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66470396
And will be playing England
-
And will be playing England
We should win, Aus not being a major footballing nation (proper football, that is: Aussie-rules football is nothing like it).
-
We should win, Aus not being a major footballing nation (proper football, that is: Aussie-rules football is nothing like it).
Not sure it works like that - there are a number of nations where men's football has never really been a major thing, but women's football is top tier. The USA being the most obvious example - never likely to come close to winning the men's world cup, but their women have won the world cup four times, including the last two. Australia might not be at that level, but they are ranked 10th in the world and playing at home. Certainly no breeze for England.
-
We should win, Aus not being a major footballing nation (proper football, that is: Aussie-rules football is nothing like it).
This is women’s football. The women’s and the men’s game are different and success depends on how well developed the women’s game is in each nation, not how well developed football is overall.
For example, the women’s game in the USA has been comparatively well supported for a long time which is why they often win. Australia’s lack of impact in the men’s game is irrelevant.
We should beat Australia, but our form so far has been inconsistent and we have suspensions and injuries, so it is a long way from being a sure thing.
-
This is women’s football. The women’s and the men’s game are different and success depends on how well developed the women’s game is in each nation, not how well developed football is overall.
For example, the women’s game in the USA has been comparatively well supported for a long time which is why they often win. Australia’s lack of impact in the men’s game is irrelevant.
We should beat Australia, but our form so far has been inconsistent and we have suspensions and injuries, so it is a long way from being a sure thing.
Add to that the one team to have beaten England under Sarina Wiegman are Australia
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65232235
-
Spain into final, another semi final loss for Sweden
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66495265
-
Aus v Eng 0-0 so far.
-
England 1 - 0 up at half time. Goal was well taken.
-
1 - 1 great goal from Australia
-
2 - 1 England - great game
-
Jolly good show!
-
3 - 1 - after 2 great chances for Australia. Surely through? Really enjoyed the match.
-
Damn - you beat me to it!
-
Not knowing much about football, I take it we're now into injury time, or something.
-
Not knowing much about football, I take it we're now into injury time, or something.
It's all over. 3 - 1. Well done, England!
-
You beat me again you bastard!
-
I'm so higgerant that I thought the Lionesses* were playing in yellow, so when a bluey scored with the score at 2-1, I thought the Matildas* had equalised for a minute. Until that moment, I'd been cheering on the wrong lot. (I hadn't seen the first three goals.)
*at least I know the team nicknames.
-
This is quite remarkable.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-66531590
I'd certain expect the semi-final to have had a big tv audience, but I certainly wouldn't have expected it to have been the most watched tv show ever on Australian tv. More than any Royal event!!!! More than Sydney Olympics opening ceremony. More than any of a number of finals that Australia have been in in sports that are, apparently, much bigger than football in Australia, such as rugby or cricket.
I think this does demonstrate that football is really a (the) dominant sport and that there are plenty of countries that might claim that football isn't big, but boy if they have a team that gets to the sharp end of a world tournament, you'll see just how big it is.
-
This is quite remarkable.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-66531590
I'd certain expect the semi-final to have had a big tv audience, but I certainly wouldn't have expected it to have been the most watched tv show ever on Australian tv. More than any Royal event!!!! More than Sydney Olympics opening ceremony. More than any of a number of finals that Australia have been in in sports that are, apparently, much bigger than football in Australia, such as rugby or cricket.
I think this does demonstrate that football is really a (the) dominant sport and that there are plenty of countries that might claim that football isn't big, but boy if they have a team that gets to the sharp end of a world tournament, you'll see just how big it is.
It doesn't mean football is big in Australia, it means Australians like to watch their sports teams do well.
What were the audience figures for Torvill and Dean's gold medal performance in the UK? Apparently, 24 million people watched it. Does that mean ice dance is a big sport here?
-
It doesn't mean football is big in Australia, it means Australians like to watch their sports teams do well.
What were the audience figures for Torvill and Dean's gold medal performance in the UK? Apparently, 24 million people watched it. Does that mean ice dance is a big sport here?
This isn't big ... it is biggest ... of all time in Australia - that's astonishing in my opinion.
Australia have won the rugby world cup twice and been in the final on two further occasions (note that when people decide to watch a match they don't actually know who is going to win). Similarly Australia have won the cricket world cup five times, and been beaten finalists twice. On one occasion for each sport Australia was not only finalist, but also host, which tends to add to viewing figures. We are told that Australia's sporting national obsessions are rugby and cricket and that football isn't a big deal.
Yet the Australian team in a semi-final (not even a final) in football drew a viewing audience bigger than any of those finals appearances (where by definition their team had got further than the semis) in their so-called national sports. Or any other event in the history of Australian tv.
I think it is remarkable frankly, and really not what I would have expected.
Oh and on your Torville & Dean comment - was this the most watched tv event of all time in the UK. Is it in the top 10 most watched tv events of all time in the UK. Is it the top tv sporting event of all time in the UK. I think you may well know the answers to those questions.
-
This isn't big ... it is biggest ... of all time in Australia - that's astonishing in my opinion.
...
Just to note that isn't what the article says which is:
'The match also broke Australian broadcast records as it became the most watched television programme of any genre in the country since the existing rating system was established in 2001.'
-
Just to note that isn't what the article says which is:
'The match also broke Australian broadcast records as it became the most watched television programme of any genre in the country since the existing rating system was established in 2001.'
That would still include the 2003 rugby world cup final. And the article specifically mentions comparison with data from previous record capture approaches - specifically Cathy Freeman at the 2000 Olympics. So they clearly aren't just restricting themselves to comparisons post 2001.
Regardless of any caveats this is absolutely astonishing in my view (and in a good way, by the way).
-
How big a challenge is Spain in the final? They must be good to have got to the final, although maybe they were lucky in their opponents thus far (I don't know, I'm just wondering).
-
How big a challenge is Spain in the final? They must be good to have got to the final, although maybe they were lucky in their opponents thus far (I don't know, I'm just wondering).
England are 4th in the FIFA rankings, Spain are 6th. So pretty close on paper. Spain have some top notch players including a fair few from the dominant Barcelona side, including Alexia Putellas who has won the Ballon D'Or for the past two years. They will be very tough opponents.
-
That would still include the 2003 rugby world cup final. And the article specifically mentions comparison with data from previous record capture approaches - specifically Cathy Freeman at the 2000 Olympics. So they clearly aren't just restricting themselves to comparisons post 2001.
Regardless of any caveats this is absolutely astonishing in my view (and in a good way, by the way).
Alexa not impressed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66508514
-
That would still include the 2003 rugby world cup final. And the article specifically mentions comparison with data from previous record capture approaches - specifically Cathy Freeman at the 2000 Olympics. So they clearly aren't just restricting themselves to comparisons post 2001.
Regardless of any caveats this is absolutely astonishing in my view (and in a good way, by the way).
Rugby union is a fairly minority sport in Australia.
-
This isn't big ... it is biggest ... of all time in Australia - that's astonishing in my opinion.
Yes it is astonishing but that doesn't mean football is big in Australia.
Oh and on your Torville & Dean comment - was this the most watched tv event of all time in the UK. Is it in the top 10 most watched tv events of all time in the UK. Is it the top tv sporting event of all time in the UK. I think you may well know the answers to those questions.
You miss the point. A large TV audience does not imply a huge following for the sport. Torvill and Dean got a huge audience, maybe not top ten, but nobody cares about ice dance in the more general sense.
-
You miss the point. A large TV audience does not imply a huge following for the sport. Torvill and Dean got a huge audience, maybe not top ten, but nobody cares about ice dance in the more general sense.
Torville and Dean got a huge audience in 1994 because they'd become A-list celebs by then, largely on the back of their Olympics win in 1984. It was Torville and Dean who were big not the sport itself. That isn't really comparable for the Matildas - where are the A list celebs, even in Australia. Sam Kerr, perhaps, but the others - I doubt even in Australia that many of them would have easily picked out in an identity parade prior to this tournament.
But, if you want any kind of comparison, better to look at the viewing figures they got when they actually won in 1984. This is a much better comparison - sports-people without huge public profile nor recognition and without a track record at that point of winning stuff (or coming close to winning stuff). For the record - their actually winning performance (in 1984) from a position of relative obscurity not only wan't in the top 10 of all time, but not in the top 10 just in 1984.
-
How big a challenge is Spain in the final? They must be good to have got to the final, although maybe they were lucky in their opponents thus far (I don't know, I'm just wondering).
They won't be a pushover. Spain are sixth in the World. The knocked out Sweden (third in the world) and the Netherlands (ninth). Their first knockout opponents were Switzerland (20th), which is not so impressive.
England (fourth in the world) have knocked out Australia (10th, but with home advantage), Colombia (25th), Nigeria (40th). Our route to the final was easier. Our best performance so far based on the rankings is pulverising China (14th) in the group stages.
All of the above is a little bit academic since this tournament didn't exactly go to form with the top two in the world going out before the quarter finals.
-
Torville and Dean got a huge audience in 1994 because they'd become A-list celebs by then, largely on the back of their Olympics win in 1984. If you want any kind of comparison, better to look at the viewing figures they got when they actually won in 1984. This is a much better comparison - sports-people without huge public profile nor recognition and without a track record at that point of winning stuff (or coming close to winning stuff). For the record - their actually winning performance (in 1984) from a position of relative obscurity not only wan't in the top 10 of all time, but not in the top 10 just in 1984.
Football is not big in Australia and just because a football match got a spectacular rating does not change that.
Now shut up about it. If you want to carry on discussing it, don't derail this thread, create another one.
-
Football is not big in Australia and just because a football match got a spectacular rating does not change that.
And how exactly do you determine whether a sport is 'big' or not. There is a certain level of historical inertia - oh sport X, or sport Y is the biggest in country Z - why? Cos we say it is, and because we've always said it is. Rubbish way of assessing things.
Surely a sport is big is a large number of people watch it (whether live or on tv) and/or play it.
Good example - Wales and rugby. We are always told that rugby is the nation sport and the welsh aren't interested in football. Yet - there are more football clubs in Wales than rugby clubs, more registered football players, greater crowds at club level in football. The only thing that puts rugby ahead are the 'event' fans who like to watch the 6-nations, but probably have no idea how their local club is doing.
Now shut up about it. If you want to carry on discussing it, don't derail this thread, create another one.
So no actual argument I see - it isn't a derail. I think talking about whether the women's world cup is popular or nor is pretty well smack on topic for a thread about the women's world cup. If there is any derail it is your irrelevant comparison with two celebs coming out of retirement for one final crack at an Olympic title.
-
And how exactly do you determine whether a sport is 'big' or not. There is a certain level of historical inertia - oh sport X, or sport Y is the biggest in country Z - why? Cos we say it is, and because we've always said it is. Rubbish way of assessing things.
Surely a sport is big is a large number of people watch it (whether live or on tv) and/or play it.
Good example - Wales and rugby. We are always told that rugby is the nation sport and the welsh aren't interested in football. Yet - there are more football clubs in Wales than rugby clubs, more registered football players, greater crowds at club level in football. The only thing that puts rugby ahead are the 'event' fans who like to watch the 6-nations, but probably have no idea how their local club is doing.
So no actual argument I see - it isn't a derail. I think talking about whether the women's world cup is popular or nor is pretty well smack on topic for a thread about the women's world cup. If there is any derail it is your irrelevant comparison with two celebs coming out of retirement for one final crack at an Olympic title.
I've decided to stop arguing with you about it on this thread because you can be a stubborn jackass taking things way too far and you tend to derail threads when you do and others contribute. Create another thread if you want to carry on this side discussion.
This is the last response I am making here about this distraction.
-
I've decided to stop arguing with you about it on this thread because you can be a stubborn jackass taking things way too far and you tend to derail threads when you do and others contribute. Create another thread if you want to carry on this side discussion.
This is the last response I am making here about this distraction.
Yawn - pot and kettle.
Taking a thread about the women's world cup down a rabbit hole of 1984 winning ice dance champions is just about the definition of a derail.
-
Alexa not impressed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66508514
Appalling, but somehow not unexpected!
-
Good example - Wales and rugby. We are always told that rugby is the nation sport and the welsh aren't interested in football. Yet - there are more football clubs in Wales than rugby clubs, more registered football players, greater crowds at club level in football. The only thing that puts rugby ahead are the 'event' fans who like to watch the 6-nations, but probably have no idea how their local club is doing.
And we have a similar thing here.
Apparently the highest viewing figures for a sporting event in Wales aren't for some grand slam winning rugby match, nor their rugby world cup semi final match. Nope - Wales v Belgium in the Euros semi final football.
So I think some claims for a particular sport being the 'biggest' in a country don't necessarily stand up to scrutiny.
-
Football is not big in Australia and just because a football match got a spectacular rating does not change that.
Except it is - certainly in terms of active participation in organised clubs - and by some considerable margin:
https://thenewdaily.com.au/sport/football/2016/12/08/most-popular-sport-in-australia/
So perhaps we should be less surprised that the biggest sport in the country in terms of grass roots participation gets the biggest viewing figures of all time when one of its national teams gets to the semi final of a global tournament.
But hey, ho - we all know that football isn't big in Australia, cos that's what we've been told.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66535460
'Spain's Queen Letizia will fly to Australia to attend Sunday's World Cup final in Sydney but no British royals will be present.'
Thoughts on this one.
On another site I follow there has been robust debate around this. One view being that as William is president of the FA it should be part and parcel of his duties in this role to attend a world cup final involving an FA team. Another point being that Charles is head of state not just of one of the countries participating but also of the host nation, so the royal family should be represented.
Now I am no royalist, but we keep getting told about all the hard work the royals put in for the organisations they are patrons - but that doesn't seem to extend to getting to Australia to represent the royal family, the FA and support the women's team. But then again I don't think William has the slightest interest in football - like Cameron he seems to claim in public to be an Aston Villa support, but no-one can work out why!
The alternative view is that a seat taken up be some disinterested royal would be better taken by an actual fan (good point), and not great for the planet to fly to Australia just for this - but then the royals with their multiple houses, entourages etc, etc already have carbon footprints what would make most of us wince.
-
If England win I wonder if the government will be less tone deaf than they were last summer when they won the Euros and there was no invite from the PM for a reception at no10.
I'd love it if Rishi invites them and they tell him to sod off as the government snubbed them last summer. ;D
-
If England win I wonder if the government will be less tone deaf than they were last summer when they won the Euros and there was no invite from the PM for a reception at no10.
I'd love it if Rishi invites them and they tell him to sod off as the government snubbed them last summer. ;D
From the game's point of view though that would seem to be counterproductive.
-
From the game's point of view though that would seem to be counterproductive.
Possible, although not convinced.
In a battle for the hearts and minds of the public between the current government and Weigman's team I think there will only be one winner.
I think in terms of recognition of the women's game there would be a pretty cogent argument along the lines of - why weren't we afforded official recognition last year when we won the Euros, why no senior representation from either government or royals at the final - unthinkable either of those things would have happened for a men's team winning the Euros or being in a world cup final.
-
From the game's point of view though that would seem to be counterproductive.
Actually the government are in a lose/lose situation.
Having singularly ignored the women's team last year and through this competition they could be consistent and ignore them if they win and face criticism for that. Alternatively they could be all over the team if they win and be accused of rank hypocrisy and bandwagon jumping.
Perhaps the government only win if England lose!!
-
Possible, although not convinced.
In a battle for the hearts and minds of the public between the current government and Weigman's team I think there will only be one winner.
I think in terms of recognition of the women's game there would be a pretty cogent argument along the lines of - why weren't we afforded official recognition last year when we won the Euros, why no senior representation from either government or royals at the final - unthinkable either of those things would have happened for a men's team winning the Euros or being in a world cup final.
I'd suggest the publicity from attending such a reception would be positive, with little downside. Allowing the team to become politicised, in particularly party politcised which this would do, seems useless in a game looking for universal appeal.
-
I'd suggest the publicity from attending such a reception would be positive, with little downside. Allowing the team to become politicised, in particularly party politcised which this would do, seems useless in a game looking for universal appeal.
Of course, you are probably right and I doubt the FA would allow them to snub a reception, but it would be funny!
If they win, I doubt they'll need much publicity. And the match itself, plus return from Australia and the open top bus celebrations etc will get far greater publicity that some photo ops with the PM at Downing St. That would be more beneficial to Sunak than the team.
But surely the message they will be trying to get across, outside of the celebrations, will be about working towards greater equality in football. Now there are all sorts of financial reasons why it will be challenging to attain pay levels close to men - that is simply down to market economics. But there is a much easier argument around parity of recognition in other respects - and gently (or not so gently) making the points around lack of official recognition last summer and lack of official support in this tournament should form part of that debate. It is surely unthinkable that were the men's team to have made it to the world cup final that there'd be no official representation from either the government nor the head of state.
-
With the Foreign Minister, you are spoiling us.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66547111
-
With the Foreign Minister, you are spoiling us.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66547111
Someone who isn't tone-deaf 'had a word' I imagine.
-
Is it too late for someone to have a word with William and/or Kate?
-
Is it too late for someone to have a word with William and/or Kate?
Yup - 22 hour flight.
Apparently they will be cheering the Lionesses on from one of their many homes!
Bit poor that the president of the FA cannot make it the first world cup final one of the senior national teams has made it to for 57 years.
Realistically these decisions should have been taken last weekend - win or lose in the semis they'd still have been playing in either the final or third place play-offs. But now it's too late for anyone at a pay grade above Cleverly to make it.
-
Is it too late for someone to have a word with William and/or Kate?
Flight time from LA to Sydney is 7 hours less, so Harry and Meghan could make it rather more easily! ;)
-
Let's break the rules and get pissed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66532694
-
Sweden take 3rd. Australia looked a little flat.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66543416
-
I think we should start referring to the other one as 'The Men's World Cup', otherwise the implication is that that's the standard one, and the WWC is secondary.
-
Let's break the rules and get pissed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66532694
I'd rather not have to contend with drunken twats in Bristol city centre on Sunday afternoon, please. It is possible to watch a football match without imbibing large quantities of alcohol, believe it or not.
-
I'd suggest the publicity from attending such a reception would be positive, with little downside. Allowing the team to become politicised, in particularly party politcised which this would do, seems useless in a game looking for universal appeal.
The way out would be for the King to host a reception or William and Kate. That's the kind of thing they are there for.
-
I think we should start referring to the other one as 'The Men's World Cup', otherwise the implication is that that's the standard one, and the WWC is secondary.
Alexa already thinks that.
I should note that I asked Siri when England will be playing Spain and she knew to look at the women's schedules. But this is after the story about Alexa broke.
-
William apologises
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66559702
-
William apologises
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66559702
"Go out there and enjoy yourselves"? Odd thing to say. Why not "...and win"? Sounds as though he doesn't expect them to.
-
"Go out there and enjoy yourselves"? Odd thing to say. Why not "...and win"? Sounds as though he doesn't expect them to.
I thought that was a really odd comments too - not so much that he doesn't think they'll win, but how patronising it sounds. These are elite professionals playing at the very pinnacle of their sport, in the biggest competition in the world - they aren't some team having a fun lick around on a Sunday morning.
But again shows how tone-deaf they are.
There has been some polling - by a marking of two to one (excluding don't knows) people think William should be there as president of the FA.
Also I think both Cleverly and Frazer are flying out from the UK so the carbon footprint argument is also moot as that could just as easily have been William (or Charles) and Sunak.
-
I wonder if given the success of Sarina Wiegman, a federation might pursue her to manage their male team.
-
I thought that was a really odd comments too - not so much that he doesn't think they'll win, but how patronising it sounds. These are elite professionals playing at the very pinnacle of their sport, in the biggest competition in the world - they aren't some team having a fun lick around on a Sunday morning.
But again shows how tone-deaf they are.
There has been some polling - by a marking of two to one (excluding don't knows) people think William should be there as president of the FA.
Also I think both Cleverly and Frazer are flying out from the UK so the carbon footprint argument is also moot as that could just as easily have been William (or Charles) and Sunak.
Iit's not just a case of booking a ticket on a plane and going, you know.
Both Sunk and Prince William will need serious amounts of security. Perhaps they should have made contingency plans to be there, but it's too late now and if England hadn't made it, and any money at all had been spent, you lot would be whining about the colossal waste.
-
Iit's not just a case of booking a ticket on a plane and going, you know.
Both Sunk and Prince William will need serious amounts of security. Perhaps they should have made contingency plans to be there, but it's too late now and if England hadn't made it, and any money at all had been spent, you lot would be whining about the colossal waste.
sure - they’ll need security. But then they always do for all sorts of engagements many of which seem rather less important to me. And Cleverly as foreign sec also will have significant security brief.
And the whole event will have huge security anyhow - don’t forget that the Aussie PM and Spanish royals are there. No idea how many other high profile security risk people are also there.
-
sure - they’ll need security. But then they always do for all sorts of engagements many of which seem rather less important to me.
You understand there's a difference between attending something in the UK and shipping yourself and an entire security detail half way around the World, an exercise that requires nearly two entire days on a plane for you and your entire entourage?
And Cleverly as foreign sec also will have significant security brief.
Not nearly so big as the head of state or the prime minister. He's not nearly so valuable a target.
And the whole event will have huge security anyhow - don’t forget that the Aussie PM and Spanish royals are there. No idea how many other high profile security risk people are also there.
For the Aussie PM that's not such a big deal. Presumably, the Spanish royals had the foresight to plan ahead. They were probably planning it before the semi final.
Honestly, I'm quite happy that neither Sunk nor any major Royals are going. It's a lot of tax payers' money at a time when the government finances are under severe stress.
-
You understand there's a difference between attending something in the UK and shipping yourself and an entire security detail half way around the World, an exercise that requires nearly two entire days on a plane for you and your entire entourage?
Sunak is currently (or certainly has just been ) in California with, so presumably, his overseas security brief.
-
Spain looking good value for their 1 - 0 score at halftime.
-
Never really watched womens' football before, but now that I'm watching this final I'm getting quite into it.
-
Congratulations to Spain!
-
Damn, blast and buggeration! >:( >:( >:(
-
Time for all the usual cliches - "They did us proud", "They can hold their heads up high", etc., which are true, but don't take away from the disappointment.
-
Time for all the usual cliches - "They did us proud", "They can hold their heads up high", etc., which are true, but don't take away from the disappointment.
The comments on this report are filled with people, many of them apparently English, who are overjoyed at the result.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66561827
-
Can I just say I'm delighted with the result. I didn't watch the match. But I could not have stood the sycophantic nationalistic circus that would have followed from England winning. I dread this every time an England team comes close to winning a competition.
-
Can I just say I'm delighted with the result. I didn't watch the match. But I could not have stood the sycophantic nationalistic circus that would have followed from England winning. I dread this every time an England team comes close to winning a competition.
No, instead we'll have nationalistic wailing and gnashing of teeth because the England team is a failure. People will have to be sacked because we lost in the final.
Sometimes I despair. It's sport. There's nothing guaranteed in sport.
-
And of course it was a "nail-biting finish", according to the BBC. Major sporting events are one big cliche-fest. I look forward to the first sighting of "roller-coaster of emotions".
-
All in all, Spain were just the better side. They were technically superior - much better able to keep the ball with neat one touch stuff. In a way it reminded me of the men's team all too often - lot's of effort and energy but ultimately coming up short through a lack of technical quality.
That's said Spain should have been down to ten players for the final part of the game as kicking the ball away as Paralluelo did should surely have been a second yellow.
-
All in all, Spain were just the better side. They were technically superior - much better able to keep the ball with neat one touch stuff. In a way it reminded me of the men's team all too often - lot's of effort and energy but ultimately coming up short through a lack of technical quality.
That's said Spain should have been down to ten players for the final part of the game as kicking the ball away as Paralluelo did should surely have been a second yellow.
Agreed Spain were the better side and deserved the win but you don't get to the final by lacking technical quality.
-
And of course it was a "nail-biting finish", according to the BBC. Major sporting events are one big cliche-fest. I look forward to the first sighting of "roller-coaster of emotions".
I know the cliches always come out - but any game going into the final minutes with just a one goal difference is going to be pretty tense - although I thought nail-biting was reserved for situations where the 'preferred' team (for our media England) hold on to win.
-
The comments on this report are filled with people, many of them apparently English, who are overjoyed at the result.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66561827
Well, I don't know about "overjoyed". I didn't read many, but they seemed more to be generously congratulating the Spaniards as the better team on the day, etc.
-
Agreed Spain were the better side and deserved the win but you don't get to the final by lacking technical quality.
Commenting on your point about technical quality - well it depends. To progress you simply need to be better than the team you are up against in each knock-out round. In its most simplistic terms you either come up against a team better than you and you get knocked out, or you never do and you win the tournament.
So you can potentially progress a long way even with significant technical limitations provided the draw unfolds kindly for you. The flip-side is also true - you may have a high quality team but come across an even better side in the quarter finals and out you go.
And actually England had a really easy route to the final once they'd progressed from the group stages - I think in the round of 16 they played a team ranked 40th in the world, in the quarters they played a team ranked 25th and in the semis a team ranked 10th. And actually they didn't really breeze their way through those stages, being behind to Columbia and Nigeria taking them all the way to penalties. The equivalent for Spain was 20, 9 and 3. Spain had a much tougher route to the final.
So I think the technical limitations were actually there all along, albeit England were able to progress as the rather low ranked teams they were playing had greater limitations. But in the final there really did seem to be a gulf in class between the two sides technically - Spain were just so much better at the neat one-touch passing stuff while England, when they were able to string together a set of passes, too often looked as if (and often did) they were simply going to lose the ball.
This isn't really a criticism and the team did brilliantly to reach the final, just being honest.
-
Well, I don't know about "overjoyed". I didn't read many, but they seemed more to be generously congratulating the Spaniards as the better team on the day, etc.
Absolutely - I'm struggling to see any comments indicating being 'overjoyed' that Spain won.
There seem to be two main themes:
1. That Spain were a class above England technically and that the better team won the match.
2. That Spain deployed the 'dark arts' of sports(wo)manship.
-
Commenting on your point about technical quality - well it depends. To progress you simply need to be better than the team you are up against in each knock-out round. In its most simplistic terms you either come up against a team better than you and you get knocked out, or you never do and you win the tournament.
So you can potentially progress a long way even with significant technical limitations provided the draw unfolds kindly for you. The flip-side is also true - you may have a high quality team but come across an even better side in the quarter finals and out you go.
And actually England had a really easy route to the final once they'd progressed from the group stages - I think in the round of 16 they played a team ranked 40th in the world, in the quarters they played a team ranked 25th and in the semis a team ranked 10th. And actually they didn't really breeze their way through those stages, being behind to Columbia and Nigeria taking them all the way to penalties. The equivalent for Spain was 20, 9 and 3. Spain had a much tougher route to the final.
So I think the technical limitations were actually there all along, albeit England were able to progress as the rather low ranked teams they were playing had greater limitations. But in the final there really did seem to be a gulf in class between the two sides technically - Spain were just so much better at the neat one-touch passing stuff while England, when they were able to string together a set of passes, too often looked as if (and often did) they were simply going to lose the ball.
This isn't really a criticism and the team did brilliantly to reach the final, just being honest.
You're claiming that the fourth best football team in the World (pre tournament) doesn't know how to pass the ball. That strains credibility. Whatever the reasons why they weren't as good on the day as Spain, it wasn't that.
It may be as simple as Spain having an extra rest day before the final.
-
You're claiming that the fourth best football team in the World (pre tournament) doesn't know how to pass the ball. That strains credibility. Whatever the reasons why they weren't as good on the day as Spain, it wasn't that.
Stop misrepresenting me - I never said they don't know how to pass the ball. What I said was that Spain appeared technically superior and were better at the rapid one touch passing that is often really important in keeping the ball.
Now I'll see if I can find the stats on this, but certainly during the game there was a point in which both numbers of passes, and crucially passes completed, were flashed up and, unsurprisingly showed Spain to be clearly superior.
And it doesn't seem to be just me who thought that Spain were clearly technically superior - this is a key theme on the comments from the BBC article that NS linked to.
-
Stop misrepresenting me - I never said they don't know how to pass the ball. What I said was that Spain appeared technically superior and were better at the rapid one touch passing that is often really important in keeping the ball.
Now I'll see if I can find the stats on this, but certainly during the game there was a point in which both numbers of passes, and crucially passes completed, were flashed up and, unsurprisingly showed Spain to be clearly superior.
And it doesn't seem to be just me who thought that Spain were clearly technically superior - this is a key theme on the comments from the BBC article that NS linked to.
Here you go:
https://www.365scores.com/football/international/women%27s-world-cup/match/england-(w)-spain/8475-12908-597/stats
Spain - total passes 485, passes completed 395 - 81%
England - total passes 362, passes completed 261 - 72%
-
Spanish President having to apologise
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66568226
-
Spanish President having to apologise
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66568226
Not much chance that there would be the same issue with the president of the English FA - on the basis that he was on the other side of the world.
-
Stop misrepresenting me - I never said they don't know how to pass the ball. What I said was that Spain appeared technically superior and were better at the rapid one touch passing that is often really important in keeping the ball.
Now I'll see if I can find the stats on this, but certainly during the game there was a point in which both numbers of passes, and crucially passes completed, were flashed up and, unsurprisingly showed Spain to be clearly superior.
And it doesn't seem to be just me who thought that Spain were clearly technically superior - this is a key theme on the comments from the BBC article that NS linked to.
They were better than England on the day. It doesn't mean that England were technically not good, which is your implication. It's an absurdity to say that about a team that is in the final of the World Cup.
-
They were better than England on the day.
Which is all we can judge them on - it is pure speculation whether this particular England team might have beaten this particular Spain team on another day.
It doesn't mean that England were technically not good, which is your implication.
It isn't what I said, nor is it my implication. What I actually said was:
All in all, Spain were just the better side. They were technically superior - much better able to keep the ball with neat one touch stuff.'
This is about the relative technical abilities - better, superior. And on that count my opinion seems to be clearly backed up not just by the result, but also by the underlying stats on passes and completed passes, which is key to one touch stuff and keeping the ball.
Ultimately we can only judge a teams actual technical ability by reference to other teams - put the England team up against a women's Sunday morning side and they'll look like world beaters. Put them up against the Man City men's team and they'll probably hardly get a touch. Put them up against Spain last Sunday and they looked clearly second best in technical terms.
What hasn't been discussed is that England had lost five key players that helped them win last summer - White and Scott retired and Mead, Kirby and Williamson were injured. Overall their squad wasn't as strong this summer compared to last, and ultimately that showed.
-
Which is all we can judge them on
Which makes your assertion all the more ridiculous.
-
Which makes your assertion all the more ridiculous.
No it doesn't at all.
My comment was about judging England's performance, and in particular their relative technical quality, against Spain in that match. And both my opinion having watched the match and the stats align in demonstrating that England's passing ability, a key element of technical ability, was clearly inferior to Spain's.
-
Fifa opens disciplinary proceedings against Spanish football federation president, Rubiales
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66606387
-
Sweden now ranked No 1
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66614837
-
Sweden now ranked No 1
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66614837
And Spain, unsurprisingly, leapfrogged over England from 6th to 2nd.
Perhaps more surprisingly England have stayed 4th despite making the final - I guess this is because their path to the final involved victories over relatively low ranked sides.
-
Fifa opens disciplinary proceedings against Spanish football federation president, Rubiales
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66606387
Who isn't resigning
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66609945
-
Who isn't resigning
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66609945
But is unlikely to stay
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66621772
-
Fifa opens disciplinary proceedings against Spanish football federation president, Rubiales
https://www
.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66606387
That well-known body of moral rectitude.
-
But is unlikely to stay
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66621772
Quite extraordinary
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66626410
-
FIFA suspends Rubiales
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66628521
-
Spanish women's team coaching staff, apart from the manager, resign.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66629505
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66629505
-
Activate the 'sexual violence protocol'!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66633123
-
It would appear thar Rubiales has lost the dressing rooms , and the terraces
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-66636111
-
And his mother now locked in a church and on hunger strike.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66637880
-
It's such a shame. This is the highlight of Spanish women's football and one man has ruined it.
-
It's such a shame. This is the highlight of Spanish women's football and one man has ruined it.
And now it may mean the manager gets sacked
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66645618
-
Men's team condemn Rubiales
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66710461
-
Manager sacked
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66721003
-
Hermoso files legal complaint
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66732327
-
Hermoso files legal complaint
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66732327
And prosecutor files with additional charge of coercion.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66750705
-
Rubiales to resign
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66637879