General Discussion on CMNT

[Wasp]

54 minutes ago, fookisan said:

Anyone know why nations league is more important than gold cup? Since it seems gold cup will be filled with lower tier players? Are games not counted equally in fifa ranking? Just curious 

I think it's more that Gold Cup squads are often B-squads from at least Mexico and the US whereas Nations League is truly best vs. best. If we went all-in on the GC and then won, it would have a bit of an asterisk. But if we win Nations League, it's a legit CONCACAF best vs. best trophy.

[Unnamed Trialist]

3 hours ago, fookisan said:

Anyone know why nations league is more important than gold cup? Since it seems gold cup will be filled with lower tier players? Are games not counted equally in fifa ranking? Just curious 

I don't think it is more important, it is just

1-first, in sequence. Similar to how we prepped for Belgium, first challenge, take what's next most seriously.

2-and easier, because it is just two games. 

It makes sense to go all in, try for that trophy, ask for the committment from our best players. So that if you win, you can let a few players pay attention to other concerns, clubs, transfers, health. If you don't win, then you start again for the GC and ask who's in of the core players.

[dyslexic nam]

Nation’s League is also a potential trophy where you only have to win 2 games.   Not that they are easy game, but Canada is never winning actual hardware easily.  So we know we can beat Panama (still have to do it on the day, but we know we can), and then we would be in a final.  One really challenging game and you may get to lift a big silver cup.  That’s pretty good odds - so you go all in on it.  

Edited June 10, 2023 by dyslexic nam

[sstackho]

Also, timing. Nations League final is closer to the end of the European season, whereas Gold Cup interferes more with their off-season. 

[MauditYvon]

On 6/10/2023 at 8:25 AM, dyslexic nam said:

Nation’s League is also a potential trophy where you only have to win 2 games.

Well, you have to win your group first.

[dyslexic nam]

10 minutes ago, MauditYvon said:

Well, you have to win your group first.

Yeah but people were asking why it was being prioritized over the GC this summer.  And at this point it is a trophy if we win two games.  

[Obinna]

On 6/10/2023 at 3:41 PM, fookisan said:

Anyone know why nations league is more important than gold cup? Since it seems gold cup will be filled with lower tier players? Are games not counted equally in fifa ranking? Just curious 

There is no technical reason why Nations League is more important than Gold Cup. It was not designed (at least officially) to be more or less important than Gold Cup.

It also depends on the team. For example, Panama probably is putting equal emphasis on both tournaments. Canada is putting a greater emphasis on Nations League, seemingly. USA is reportedly putting the most importance on NL relative to GC based on the expected roster rotation, but Mexico is expected to rotate much less. 

I think it largely comes down to building player pool depth for those who can. USA now has the deepest pool and have proven they can win the GC tournament with a rotated roster, so why not do so? Canada can somewhat do this but cannot call a full B team and win, or at least haven't proven it, and besides our goal is to simply win. We are not so focused on rotation like the USA are. Mexico is somewhere in between us and the USA right now, and the others like Panama, Costa Rica, and others cannot rotate much at all without losing their competitive edge, so they won't. They also don't have the number of European based players, so there is no reason for them to rotate in that regard. The European based players of USA, Mexico, or Canada have to sacrifice their off season in a way that MLS players, Liga MX players, or domestic players of Panama, Costa Rica, Honduras, etc. do not.

[johnyb]

I would argue it's less important than the Gold Cup, but for many of the reasons mentioned in the previous posts, we're going for the win and I don't disagree.

[Mitchryan11]

https://twitter.com/thelaurenchen/status/1668455818059206656?s=46&t=Pu2wrOWD2T9fO-OcYeVK5A

[Unnamed Trialist]

18 hours ago, Mitchryan11 said:

https://twitter.com/thelaurenchen/status/1668455818059206656?s=46&t=Pu2wrOWD2T9fO-OcYeVK5A

Don't see how it's at all relevant. What's relevant to me is if people want to watch it. Americans watch March Madness and the basketball is atrocious, and I mostly watch Gonzaga, a top team. They'd be lucky to beat the 200th best pro team in Europe. Canadians flock to junior hockey and you can't tell me it's good. You can't argue fans support a sport because of objective quality.

Only thing I say: if you want women's football then support it. I get the sense a majority of women tweeting about it online never go and won't spend a dime on it.

[jhoops__]

We watch college hoops for the drama.   The first 2 days of the tournament is like nothing else in sports.   

[Shway]

18 hours ago, Mitchryan11 said:

https://twitter.com/thelaurenchen/status/1668455818059206656?s=46&t=Pu2wrOWD2T9fO-OcYeVK5A

I saw this, and was so happy these guys didn't let up. I'm sure their conversation went like "fellas I know we are playing ladies, but we gotta take this seriously. If we don't pump them, we will be a national headline"

...There's a level of audacity that supersedes will/ability or even the message. 

[Unnamed Trialist]

1 hour ago, jhoops__ said:

We watch college hoops for the drama.   The first 2 days of the tournament is like nothing else in sports.   

The drama is not objective: it is created, fabricated. It is like any narrative, you have to buy in. But you are not buying into watching quality basketball, if you are sucked into thinking that then you are lying to yourself. To me it looks closer to good high school than to good pro. And as I say, I watch certain teams, Gonzaga because I know Spokane, have a friend who used to coach high school who has sent players there from Canada. Pick a team, invest in it emotionally. But that basketball is absolute garbage at times. You can't argue that women's is not quality enough to get fans out, because they'll watch anything if the narrative is well-enough fabricated.

I think it is a good example of how to create a connection with a team regardless of quality. Watch a school team, school affiliation. Neighbourhood. City. I am sure CPL could do a lot more work on the narratives that connect potential fans to the teams, as an example. MLS could do a lot more too. They have all these tired formulas and get 20,000 out in cities of a couple million. 

[InglewoodJack]

1 hour ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Don't see how it's at all relevant. What's relevant to me is if people want to watch it. Americans watch March Madness and the basketball is atrocious, and I mostly watch Gonzaga, a top team. They'd be lucky to beat the 200th best pro team in Europe. Canadians flock to junior hockey and you can't tell me it's good. You can't argue fans support a sport because of objective quality.

Only thing I say: if you want women's football then support it. I get the sense a majority of women tweeting about it online never go and won't spend a dime on it.

It's a Lauren Chen tweet. Her whole shit is doing le epic trollz on The Left. It's corny and tedious. Surprised she didn't make a follow up tweet analyzing each player on the women's team to identify which may have been born a- actually never mind. She's an idiot.

To your point about fabricated drama, it's true. One of the biggest stories in soccer this year is Wrexham, but if you pick apart their story, the magic fades. They spent like a mid-table League One team while effectively playing in a semi-pro league, so obviously they smashed the entire league (not sure where Notts County spent, but it shouldn't have been that close!) and even then, realistically, they're what- the 70th best team in England?  They'd get smashed by most MLS teams, they'd probably lose to top USL teams and probably face some difficulties playing a team like Forge too. But you watch those games, you watch them secure promotion (forget that they choked it away last year), and it's completely magical. Same with March Madness. Nothing like a 5'6 white guy shooting 24% who is going to be selling cars next year hit a big 3 pointer with a couple seconds on the clock.

A women's amateur team gets steamrolled by a men's amateur team? Okay, let's watch Wrexham play Manchester City. Let's watch Vermont State Technical College or whoever was the 64 seed in this year's tournament play the Denver Nuggets. Hell, let's watch Christine Sinclair play for the worst la liga team in a game against Barcelona, because clearly all of her goals don't matter because she'd clearly get destroyed by men or whatever that argument is. For a country whose men's game developed later than our women, dunking on a women's team for losing to men just sounds like a cheap shot that's probably rooted more in sexism than anything to do with soccer.

I think accessibility is a big barrier in going to watch women's games. The WNBA is starting to get more popular, I'm seeing a lot more stuff on social media about it, and more and more basketball follows of mine- men and women go to games. Women's soccer is less developed than basketball, and honestly, the issue might be that people don't even know where and when their team is playing, or if they even have a team to begin with. All these basketball stars go and play in Russia and get these massive contracts, and a big reason for that is that they have the crowds because they showcase the women's game better than we do.

[jhoops__]

1 hour ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

The drama is not objective: it is created, fabricated. It is like any narrative, you have to buy in. But you are not buying into watching quality basketball, if you are sucked into thinking that then you are lying to yourself. To me it looks closer to good high school than to good pro. And as I say, I watch certain teams, Gonzaga because I know Spokane, have a friend who used to coach high school who has sent players there from Canada. Pick a team, invest in it emotionally. But that basketball is absolute garbage at times. You can't argue that women's is not quality enough to get fans out, because they'll watch anything if the narrative is well-enough fabricated.

I think it is a good example of how to create a connection with a team regardless of quality. Watch a school team, school affiliation. Neighbourhood. City. I am sure CPL could do a lot more work on the narratives that connect potential fans to the teams, as an example. MLS could do a lot more too. They have all these tired formulas and get 20,000 out in cities of a couple million. 

To each his own man.  I watch all levels of sport and enjoy it thoroughly…

[SpursFlu]

I like women's soccer just nowhere near as much as men's soccer. I dont feel like the devil but I am to them. I think that's how the old song goes.

Sometimes I think these topics are thrust upon us so everyone just throws their hands in the air and say to hell with all of it

Edited June 14, 2023 by SpursFlu

[jhoops__]

I’m the same…I’ll watch Canada games and Canadian players but that’s it.

[InglewoodJack]

3 minutes ago, SpursFlu said:

I like women's soccer just nowhere near as much as men's soccer. I dont feel like the devil but I am to them. I think that's how the old song goes.

Sometimes I think these topics are thrust upon us so everyone just throws their hands in the air and say to hell with all of it

I mean, that’s fine. It’s more the insistance that any discussion of women’s sports has to come with the caveat that “they’re actually really terrible compared to men!!”. We get it. Enjoy the game for what it is, no need to shit on it to assert that someone else is better. 

[SpursFlu]

7 minutes ago, InglewoodJack said:

I mean, that’s fine. It’s more the insistance that any discussion of women’s sports has to come with the caveat that “they’re actually really terrible compared to men!!”. We get it. Enjoy the game for what it is, no need to shit on it to assert that someone else is better. 

I think you get what you give in life. I think if we went back to standing on our own 2 feet and not creating an identity in relation to others we could all just go back to enjoying reality and each other

Edited June 14, 2023 by SpursFlu

[Unnamed Trialist]

3 hours ago, InglewoodJack said:

It's a Lauren Chen tweet. Her whole shit is doing le epic trollz on The Left. It's corny and tedious. Surprised she didn't make a follow up tweet analyzing each player on the women's team to identify which may have been born a- actually never mind. She's an idiot.

To your point about fabricated drama, it's true. One of the biggest stories in soccer this year is Wrexham, but if you pick apart their story, the magic fades. They spent like a mid-table League One team while effectively playing in a semi-pro league, so obviously they smashed the entire league (not sure where Notts County spent, but it shouldn't have been that close!) and even then, realistically, they're what- the 70th best team in England?  They'd get smashed by most MLS teams, they'd probably lose to top USL teams and probably face some difficulties playing a team like Forge too. But you watch those games, you watch them secure promotion (forget that they choked it away last year), and it's completely magical. Same with March Madness. Nothing like a 5'6 white guy shooting 24% who is going to be selling cars next year hit a big 3 pointer with a couple seconds on the clock.

A women's amateur team gets steamrolled by a men's amateur team? Okay, let's watch Wrexham play Manchester City. Let's watch Vermont State Technical College or whoever was the 64 seed in this year's tournament play the Denver Nuggets. Hell, let's watch Christine Sinclair play for the worst la liga team in a game against Barcelona, because clearly all of her goals don't matter because she'd clearly get destroyed by men or whatever that argument is. For a country whose men's game developed later than our women, dunking on a women's team for losing to men just sounds like a cheap shot that's probably rooted more in sexism than anything to do with soccer.

I think accessibility is a big barrier in going to watch women's games. The WNBA is starting to get more popular, I'm seeing a lot more stuff on social media about it, and more and more basketball follows of mine- men and women go to games. Women's soccer is less developed than basketball, and honestly, the issue might be that people don't even know where and when their team is playing, or if they even have a team to begin with. All these basketball stars go and play in Russia and get these massive contracts, and a big reason for that is that they have the crowds because they showcase the women's game better than we do.

Wrexham. Within 5 years they are quite likely to maybe promote another time, and maybe relegate in turn, or be immersed in a relegation battle; the owners will sour because they sheen has worn off, and then it'll turn out "badly".

The narrative arc is more likely to be the relationship ending not with a bang but with a whimper. 

No one seriously thinks this is a solid committment to a place and a people and a stadium and a historical club that will still be valid around 2030-35? There's not a longstanding fan who doesn't know this. Mostly Wrexham fans, with the current owners, are being nice.

[InglewoodJack]

10 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Wrexham. Within 5 years they are quite likely to maybe promote another time, and maybe relegate in turn, or be immersed in a relegation battle; the owners will sour because they sheen has worn off, and then it'll turn out "badly".

The narrative arc is more likely to be the relationship ending not with a bang but with a whimper. 

No one seriously thinks this is a solid committment to a place and a people and a stadium and a historical club that will still be valid around 2030-35? There's not a longstanding fan who doesn't know this. Mostly Wrexham fans, with the current owners, are being nice.

I don’t know- I see Luton Town going from National League to Premier League in I think 11 years, and I can’t help but wonder why Wrexham can’t do the same. They clearly aren’t afraid to spend on the team, Reynolds has a lot of experience cashing big on his investments and he definitely knows how club value compounds for every promotion so if you were to tell me that by 2035, Wrexham is a yo-yo club between the premier and championship, I’d buy it. On the other hand, what you are describing isn’t all that different from AFC Wimbledon- sure the fans own them so the interest won’t dissipate, but they got promoted pretty much every season until they hit that League One wall, and now it looks like they’re probably going to bounce between League One and Two for the foreseeable future. A similar outcome for Wrexham isn’t out of the question either. 

[Greatest Cockney Rip Off]

3 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

No one seriously thinks this is a solid committment to a place and a people and a stadium and a historical club that will still be valid around 2030-35? There's not a longstanding fan who doesn't know this. Mostly Wrexham fans, with the current owners, are being nice.

I think that is a bit unfair to the new owners as since taking over they have bought back the ground returning to the club, started a major renovation to a derelict part of the ground and have massively increased the profile of club and the city. I think all of will be benefiting the club and community well beyond 2035, especially the investment in infrastructure. 

[Bigandy]

16 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Wrexham. Within 5 years they are quite likely to maybe promote another time, and maybe relegate in turn, or be immersed in a relegation battle; the owners will sour because they sheen has worn off, and then it'll turn out "badly".

The narrative arc is more likely to be the relationship ending not with a bang but with a whimper. 

No one seriously thinks this is a solid committment to a place and a people and a stadium and a historical club that will still be valid around 2030-35? There's not a longstanding fan who doesn't know this. Mostly Wrexham fans, with the current owners, are being nice.

Why would the the sheen be the reason it turns out badly. Theyve made so much money on this investment. They were never a bunch of fans who had money and wanted to play real life fifa. They are investors who are probably going to turn wrexham into a profitable club (not including the tv series). Theres a good chance that the TV show will end and they either sell the club in a much much better position with close to championship quality infrastructure or they keep running the team like any other owner. 

Adding on to infastructure improvements, think about all the sponsorships theyve acquired. Theyll likely improve their scouting and increase revenue from player sales. 

Basically the owners have to invest in the club to make a tv show. The TV show makes a ton of money. The club is vastly improved in all areas and most likely will be profitable for future investors. 

[BearcatSA]

Is it 3-5-2 or back to 3-4-3 tomorrow vs Panama?  Or four in the back?

[ADP10]

IMO you should get payed for the amount of money you bring in.