Page 52 of 56
Re: Women's football
Posted:
Fri Feb 17, 2023 12:54 pm
by Durhamfootman
Gingerfinch wrote:We went last night.
The first game was decent. Thought Italy were a little unlucky to lose.
England were decent but Korea worked their socks off for 90 minutes. James did play well. Strong like her brother. I was a little disappointed with Hemp, when she came on. She normally drives with the ball but played the easy pass too often.
I did wonder if you were there. I hadn't realised that it was a double header, so good value presumably. Did you have to wait long between matches?
I hadn't occurred to me that Lauren is the sister of Reece James
Re: Women's football
Posted:
Fri Feb 17, 2023 1:34 pm
by Gingerfinch
Durhamfootman wrote:Gingerfinch wrote:We went last night.
The first game was decent. Thought Italy were a little unlucky to lose.
England were decent but Korea worked their socks off for 90 minutes. James did play well. Strong like her brother. I was a little disappointed with Hemp, when she came on. She normally drives with the ball but played the easy pass too often.
I did wonder if you were there. I hadn't realised that it was a double header, so good value presumably. Did you have to wait long between matches?
I hadn't occurred to me that Lauren is the sister of Reece James
The wife paid for the tickets, so I have no clue how much they were. Not expensive I imagine. There were quite a few girls from my daughters Football team plus the parents so it was a good day/evening. I think there was an hour gap between matches? That was fine apart from one idiot who kept shouting for Mary Earps's autograph whilst she was warming up. He must have asked 20 times.
I think their Father coached them from a young age and now they're both at Chelsea. Proud Dad!
Re: Women's football
Posted:
Fri Feb 17, 2023 2:34 pm
by Durhamfootman
when I went to SJP for the 2012 olympic football double header it was a 2 hour gap between matches, which was frankly ridiculous, so anything less than that is an improvement
Re: Women's football
Posted:
Mon Feb 20, 2023 4:14 pm
by Durhamfootman
Sarina made a lot of changes for the match yesterday. Lots of players getting chances to play, which is good in a WC year
Still not at their very best and certainly not fluent football being played, but the wins keep coming. Daly with two goals as the lone striker (I think she scored in the first game too) gives England options. She could easily play left back and then go forward to replace Russo if the situation calls for a change
there was some good work from Katie Zelem when she came on and I'm liking the young winger Robinson.... I've been impressed with her over the two games. Ellie Roebuck didn't drop a total clanger
unlucky to concede, I think. It was no better than 50-50 as to whether the ball stayed in play and it looked 50-50 as to whether the ball crossed the line, so that goal would probably only have been given once out of four times with VAR unavailable
Re: Women's football
Posted:
Mon Feb 20, 2023 9:38 pm
by Gingerfinch
Roebuck could have done better with the goal.
Re: Women's football
Posted:
Tue Feb 21, 2023 9:35 pm
by Durhamfootman
certainly no threat to Mary Earps
Re: Women's football
Posted:
Wed Feb 22, 2023 4:12 pm
by Gingerfinch
Durhamfootman wrote:certainly no threat to Mary Earps
Not even close. I have not got a clue how good the other English keepers are?
Re: Women's football
Posted:
Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:43 pm
by Gingerfinch
Watching the game tonight, Footman?
Re: Women's football
Posted:
Wed Feb 22, 2023 8:01 pm
by Durhamfootman
Thanks for the reminder, ginger, I had forgotten
Yes
Re: Women's football
Posted:
Wed Feb 22, 2023 8:03 pm
by Durhamfootman
There was a keeper who played in a friendly a few months ago. Can't remember her name, but she looked really good. The only thing I remember about her was that she was very young. I'll see if I can find a name
Re: Women's football
Posted:
Wed Feb 22, 2023 8:06 pm
by Durhamfootman
Hannah Hampton, I think. She was 3rd choice keeper in the Euro's squad
Re: Women's football
Posted:
Wed Feb 22, 2023 8:10 pm
by Gingerfinch
Don't know her?
Back to full strength tonight. I'm expecting a win by 2-3 given the team that's been put out.
Re: Women's football
Posted:
Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:36 pm
by Durhamfootman
how about by 5?
Re: Women's football
Posted:
Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:38 pm
by Gingerfinch
Durhamfootman wrote:how about by 5?
Should have been by 10!
Re: Women's football
Posted:
Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:53 pm
by Durhamfootman
Perhaps!
After saying in the first two games that England weren't quite at their fluent best, they were right on it tonight for large parts of the game. This was probably Wiegman's strongest side and it showed. There was period in the first half between the first two goals, where they became a little too intricate and tried to walk the ball into the net, but that didn't last too long.
Kelly was outstanding tonight and fully deserved her POM. It was a measure of her influence that in the first half when she played wide left, that was where much of the danger came from and when she swapped sides to accommodate Hemp, the biggest threat came from wide right. It was also interesting to note that once Kelly swapped sides, Bronze became much more of a threat too. That has to be the thing James needs to work on. She tends to run with the ball because that's her strength, but Bronze could help her a lot more if James would let her.
I'm half tempted to think, now that Russo starts games, that she was more dangerous when she came on as an impact player. Now that Sarina has seemingly decided to play Daly as a striker, perhaps she should be the starter. Equally, I might be overthinking it