Who's watching the World Cup final?

[Biggie]

3 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

LOLWUT

Ahhhhh you must be a huge woman’s gym rat fan. 

[Kal-El814]

1 minute ago, Biggie said:

Ahhhhh you must be a huge woman’s gym rat fan. 

You're the worst kind of troll, a lazy one

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

I settled this argument on the last page.

[Brian]

It was definitely a more entertaining, well played World Cup than the last one.  The play will improve each World Cup as long as the major clubs in the world continue to invest in the women’s game.

[Biggie]

12 minutes ago, ManUtdRedDevils said:

It was definitely a more entertaining, well played World Cup than the last one.  The play will improve each World Cup as long as the major clubs in the world continue to invest in the women’s game.

Thanks for the insight ma’am 

[AbsolutSurgen]

1 hour ago, Chris- said:

That's still a stupid argument though. Like, good compared to what? The USWNT isn't good compared to the French mens national team, but that is a pointless comparison because they don't play them. And you would be hard pressed to explain how the Women's World Cup is 'bad', other than it is less physical/quick.

I was talking about Women's soccer as a sport (and a form of entertainment).  I don't think it is particularly good because:

1)  Complete lack of any competitive balance ( because of the low scoring, soccer tournaments offer more opportunities for upsets, there seemed to be very few upsets in this tournament, which I attribute to the wide range in quality of teams)

2)  It is played at a slower speed than the other soccer I have watched

3)  The player skill level appears to be SIGNIFICANTLY lower than other soccer that I've watched  (much lower than MLS, which IMHO is pretty bad soccer)

4)  The quality of the officiating is apparently abysmal (UEFA/FIFA men's tournaments are notorious for the low quality of officiating, and reports I have read suggest the women's tournament is another step back)

 

55 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I wouldn't call myself a gymnastics fan, because I don't have time to follow it year-round, but damn if I don't get excited to watch it during the Olympics every four years and cheer for Team USA. 

Does that make you patriotic, or the sport good/entertaining?

 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

9 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

 

 

Does that make you patriotic, or the sport good/entertaining?

 

Well, as I've implied in this very thread, I'm not particularly patriotic, at least in the sense these over compensating people think you should be. 

 

And since I mentioned gymnastics specifically and not a bunch of other random sports, I'm gonna say it's probably just because I find it immensely entertaining. 

[Chris-]

15 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

I was talking about Women's soccer as a sport (and a form of entertainment).  I don't think it is particularly good because:

1)  Complete lack of any competitive balance ( because of the low scoring, soccer tournaments offer more opportunities for upsets, there seemed to be very few upsets in this tournament, which I attribute to the wide range in quality of teams)

2)  It is played at a slower speed than the other soccer I have watched

3)  The player skill level appears to be SIGNIFICANTLY lower than other soccer that I've watched  (much lower than MLS, which IMHO is pretty bad soccer)

4)  The quality of the officiating is apparently abysmal (UEFA/FIFA men's tournaments are notorious for the low quality of officiating, and reports I have read suggest the women's tournament is another step back)

 

 

Every point you just made could be said about college football and basketball. There is no parity (only an incredibly small percentage of teams have a true chance to win the championship in any given year; upsets happen during the NCAA Tournament, but that's about it), they are both slower and less skill-driven (basketball especially), and the officiating is always terrible since each conference has its own officials. And yet there are not nearly as many, 'I don't think college sports are good' takes as there are 'Women's soccer isn't good' takes; go ahead and ask yourself why that is the case.

[AbsolutSurgen]

15 minutes ago, Chris- said:

 

Every point you just made could be said about college football and basketball. There is no parity (only an incredibly small percentage of teams have a true chance to win the championship in any given year; upsets happen during the NCAA Tournament, but that's about it), they are both slower and less skill-driven (basketball especially), and the officiating is always terrible since each conference has its own officials. And yet there are not nearly as many, 'I don't think college sports are good' takes as there are 'Women's soccer isn't good' takes; go ahead and ask yourself why that is the case.

It is also relative.  I would call most college athletics "not good" -- and as a Canadian, I am baffled at American fascination with college sports.  In addition, Alabama football and Duke basketball are significantly closer to the quality of play of the NFL/NBA than the USWNT is to the Premier League.  There are players on Alabama/Duke that could compete for a spot in those leagues.  I don't believe the players on the USWNT could compete in the 3rd or 4th tier of English football.

[SaysWho?]

It really doesn't matter if the women can compete with men; they're not playing each other lol. 

 

There seems to just be an underlying, "Women aren't good at sports!" vibe by comparing them to men because men are overall going to be quicker, when it's irrelevant. They're all not as quick overall, so it's balanced.

 

In biggie's case, he's sexually frustrated and angry that the players don't like Trump.

[AbsolutSurgen]

4 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

It really doesn't matter if the women can compete with men; they're not playing each other lol. 

If the skill level of the athletes doesn't matter to you, what attracts you to watching one sporting event over another?  What makes it "good"?

[Keyser_Soze]

4 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

3 pages of raging over the women's team nice

 

Cnut just makes threads turn controversial and go on for numerous pages.

[SaysWho?]

Just now, AbsolutSurgen said:

If the skill level 

 

I've never watched someone do a 100 meter run and thought, "Lame, cheetahs can run quicker, this takes no skill." You can't say it's not "good" relative to men's because they don't play each other, and you can only judge it based on the women in the game.

 

They're women playing at the highest level against each other. They don't have to be as quick as a man; the game simply feels different based on their speed, not "worse." 

[AbsolutSurgen]

2 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I've never watched someone do a 100 meter run and thought, "Lame, cheetahs can run quicker, this takes no skill." You can't say it's not "good" relative to men's because they don't play each other, and you can only judge it based on the women in the game.

 

They're women playing at the highest level against each other. They don't have to be as quick as a man; the game simply feels different based on their speed, not "worse." 

So you're arguing that skill level doesn't affect the enjoyment of watching competitive sports?

[Brian]

The MLS has been around for 23 years with significant investment in the last 10 years and it is average to subpar at best.  I wish some of the US men midfielders had the skill Heath and Rapinoe showed in the tournament. 

 

During the World Cup, the two teams that showed a tremendous growth were France and England. Not surprising that the major clubs in both countries started to invest in women’s soccer. Manchester United just started a women’s team last year. With more investment in the sport, you will see a more competitive tournament moving forward. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

18 minutes ago, ManUtdRedDevils said:

The MLS has been around for 23 years with significant investment in the last 10 years and it is average to subpar at best.  I wish some of the US men midfielders had the skill Heath and Rapinoe showed in the tournament. 

Rapinoe would not be able to compete for a spot in MLS.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

1 hour ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Cnut just makes threads turn controversial and go on for numerous pages.

Mmm, don't think this one is on me. Try again next time. 

[Biggie]

1 hour ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Cnut just makes threads turn controversial and go on for numerous pages.

It’s her potty mouth that gets me going

[Kal-El814]

1 hour ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

So you're arguing that skill level doesn't affect the enjoyment of watching competitive sports?

The Cleveland Browns have fans, so the answer to this is obviously yes.

[Jason]

[Firewithin]

6 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

The Cleveland Browns have fans, so the answer to this is obviously yes.

 

to be fair they might be sort of good this year.  the more apt comparison now should be the knicks

[Kal-El814]

7 minutes ago, Firewithin said:

to be fair they might be sort of good this year.  the more apt comparison now should be the knicks

At this point there doesn’t seem to be much difference between cheering for the Knicks and cheering for the Ottoman Empire. I mean I guess they were both important at some point but does anyone know when and does it matter? No. 

[Brian]

45 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Rapinoe would not be able to compete for a spot in MLS.

Lol. Guess you have not watched FC Cincinnati play this year.

 

Yes a 34 year old woman would have a hard time with the physical aspect of the MLS but her skill set is good enough to make the roster on several MLS teams. 

[Chris-]

1 hour ago, Kal-El814 said:

I am a fan of the New York Jets

 

[Keyser_Soze]

The Bills have fans. @BuckFly is proof.

[Biggie]

5 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

The Bills have fans. @BuckFly is proof.

He loves his Bills

[SaysWho?]

9 hours ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

So you're arguing that skill level doesn't affect the enjoyment of watching competitive sports?

 

One of the biggest pet peeves is when someone says, "What's you're saying is..." followed by a made-up characterization of something the other person never said. How you read something like, "It's different, not worse," and, "They're playing at the highest level," and then come up with this stinker of a reply is a mystery to me and likely others.

 

Weird. Can we agree that you've abandoned the idea of, "How can it be good if you're not watching?" because you got off that real quick.

[Biggie]

12 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

One of the biggest pet peeves is when someone says, "What's you're saying is..." followed by a made-up characterization of something the other person never said. How you read something like, "It's different, not worse," and, "They're playing at the highest level," and then come up with this stinker of a reply is a mystery to me and likely others.

 

Weird. Can we agree that you've abandoned the idea of, "How can it be good if you're not watching?" because you got off that real quick.

I’ll check back with you one year from now and ask you about women’s soccer. You’ll be  

[SaysWho?]

Just now, Biggie said:

I’ll check back with you one year from now and ask you about women’s soccer. You’ll be  

 

What does that have to do with the World Cup, doe?

[Biggie]

4 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

What does that have to do with the World Cup, doe?

You’re like the casual football fan who only watches the Super Bowl

[SaysWho?]

4 minutes ago, Biggie said:

You’re like the casual football fan who only watches the Super Bowl

 

You didn't answer the question. What do my viewing habits have to do with the quality of the sport? Someone could not watch anything but the Super Bowl; that doesn't mean there isn't good play in the NFL.

 

It doesn't even matter; no one will remember any of us for being "real fans" so the obsession with fair weather fans, casual fans, etc. has always humored me.

[SaysWho?]

Team USA Women’s World Cup Final Victory Delivers 14.3M Viewers For Fox, Crushes Men’s 2018 Soccer Final

 

Quote

Settling at 14.3 million viewers, the 2-0 win over the Netherlands in Lyon, France for the now four-time WWC champs, yesterday’s win is up 22% over the 2018 Men’s World Cup final. While the 8 AM PT kick-off game was down 43% in total sets of eyeballs from the primetime 2015 WWC Final in Vancouver, Canada (which Team USA also won, BTW), the 2019 WWC Final bopped up 4% in total audience over the 2011 WWC, which was played in Germany and saw Japan beat the U.S. in penalty shoot-outs following a 2-2 draw.

 

Quote

Not that Fox and its various online properties were the only place to see the game.Telemundo Deportes’ Spanish-language airing of the match hit  a Total Audience Delivery average of 1.6 million viewers for the Comcast-owned outlet. Unlike on Fox, that actually tops the 2015 WWC Final by 22% to become the most watched FIFA Women’s World Cup game ever in the U.S. on a Spanish-language network.

 

Biggie's got a lot of people to be mad at.

[Keyser_Soze]

41 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

One of the biggest pet peeves is when someone says, "What's you're saying is..." followed by a made-up characterization of something the other person never said. 

 

I’ll decide what your pet peeves are  

[AbsolutSurgen]

39 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

One of the biggest pet peeves is when someone says, "What's you're saying is..." followed by a made-up characterization of something the other person never said. How you read something like, "It's different, not worse," and, "They're playing at the highest level," and then come up with this stinker of a reply is a mystery to me and likely others.

 

Weird. Can we agree that you've abandoned the idea of, "How can it be good if you're not watching?" because you got off that real quick.

My pet peeve is when people are forced to say "What you're saying..." to try and figure out what someone's point is, because they won't explicitly say it, and instead talk about the skill of cheetah's running the 100-yard dash.

 

No.  That point was "I don't really believe you think women's soccer is good, because you couldn't be bothered to actually watch it."

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

9 hours ago, Kal-El814 said:

The Cleveland Browns have fans, so the answer to this is obviously yes.

I know some Cleveland fans; the don’t enjoy watching the games, but they do it anyways.