Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: SoccerInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  Sports e-mail alerts  |  RSS

USA in D.C.

We told you last month that the U.S. women's national team was going to play at RFK Stadium. We told you last week that the opponent would be Canada. Now, it's official: May 10 at 7 p.m. (no TV), a rematch of Saturday's Olympic qualifying championship game, won by the Americans on PKs following a 1-1 tie.

Tickets are on sale today. Click here for details.

By Steve Goff  |  April 14, 2008; 9:56 AM ET
Categories:  Women  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Good, The Bad, The Coyote Ugly
Next: DCU Update

Comments

Yawwwwwwwwwn!!!!!!!

Posted by: Harpo | April 14, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Who is we? Is everything ok Steven?

Posted by: Concerned Mental Health Professional | April 14, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

This blog needs some links to video highlights.

Posted by: Olympic Fever | April 14, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

There will be blood

Posted by: Logan Circle | April 14, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

The statistics made the final this weekend look like it was a good, one-sided match, but it was one of the most boring matches I have ever followed on MatchTracker. I think the guy doing commentary got bored up until deep into the overtime. Why is MT always messing up and wrong for the women's matches?

Posted by: sitruc | April 14, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Thanks Steve.

No schedule conflicts, as DC plays Chicago on Thursday. But, the (other) Nationals play the Marlins at 7:10PM.

Come on folks, let see if we can help the WNT out-draw the baseball game.

Posted by: I-270, Exit 1 | April 14, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Please don't waste our time with this nonsense. This is not soccer.

Posted by: Alan | April 14, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

We are trying to locate the owner of a Bible that has the name "Steve Goff" printed on the front cover. Please reply to this e-mail to identify.

Posted by: E Berryhill | April 14, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

-------
Please don't waste our time with this nonsense. This is not soccer.
-------

There's no point in complaining to Goff.

I think your statement needs to be sent directly to the IOC and FIFA (although, I'm confident you'll find little agreement with your opinion.)

Posted by: Can't we all just get along | April 14, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Please don't waste our time with this nonsense. This is not soccer.

Posted by: Alan | April 14, 2008 10:36 AM

How enlightened...

Thanks for the info, Steve.

Posted by: Joe Doc | April 14, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

-------
But, the (other) Nationals play the Marlins at 7:10PM.
--------

Please don't waste our time with this nonsense. That match-up is not baseball.

Posted by: Funplex | April 14, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

I could have stopped the Real Salt Lake Goals on Saturday.

Posted by: Hope | April 14, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

No schedule conflicts, as DC plays Chicago on Thursday. But, the (other) Nationals play the Marlins at 7:10PM
===========================================

Then who gets Lot 8?

Also, I see that we are being offered an opportunity to pay $150 for the privilege of sitting in the worst seats in the house (i.e., if you really want to see anything). I've asked this question before, and I'll ask it again: What would you think of a TV network that placed all its cameras at field level?

Posted by: tri-village | April 14, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

But, the (other) Nationals play the Marlins at 7:10PM.

Posted by: I-270, Exit 1 | April 14, 2008 10:27 AM

And you thought CF stood for Club de Futbol...

Posted by: RK | April 14, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

US(A) = The US National Team

US Women = The US Women's National Team

There is no such thing (except in 'Merka) as a Men's National Team.

Posted by: Kit Manager | April 14, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

RE: $150 tickets

1. A fool and his money are soon parted. (Old adage)

2. There's a sucker born every minute. (P.T. Barnum)

3. Over-indulgent, wealthy parents are fools and suckers. (USSF Sales Director)

Posted by: I-270, Exit 1 | April 14, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Kit Manager:

Thank you!! That 'USMNT' nonsense gives me the creeps. You use that phrase, you may as well be wearing a "I'm a Soccer Mom" t-shirt and cutting orange slices.

Posted by: D.C. | April 14, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

There is no such thing (except in 'Merka) as a Men's National Team.
=========================================

http://www.canadasoccer.com/eng/media/viewArtical.asp?Press_ID=3039

Posted by: tri-village | April 14, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

The statistics made the final this weekend look like it was a good, one-sided match, but it was one of the most boring matches I have ever followed on MatchTracker. I think the guy doing commentary got bored up until deep into the overtime. Why is MT always messing up and wrong for the women's matches?

Posted by: sitruc | April 14, 2008 10:24 AM
===========================================

When they weren't snoozing, did they indicate that it was a pro-Canada crowd, as one might expect?

Posted by: tri-village | April 14, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Is today Misogynist Pride Day? It's not marked on the calendar.

Then again, they can't spell "Misogynist" - they have enough trouble with "Day."

Posted by: I-270, Exit 1 | April 14, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

http://www.canadasoccer.com/eng/media/viewArtical.asp?Press_ID=3039

Posted by: tri-village | April 14, 2008 11:56 AM

Really? That's the best you can do... Canada? I think Anne Murray and Marc Bircham play for Canada.

Posted by: Kit Manager | April 14, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

A search of the FIFA Web site turns up articles that use the term "men's national team" with respect to Afghanistan, Peru, China, etc., etc. But I guess those people at FIFA don't know what they're talking about.

http://www.fifa.com/search/index.htmx?q=%22men's+national+team%22&sitesearch=www.fifa.com/aboutfifa

Posted by: tri-village | April 14, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

España...

http://www.rfef.es/

Selecciones
Fútbol Absoluta
Fútbol Femenino

Posted by: Kit Seleccionador | April 14, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

España...

http://www.rfef.es/

Selecciones
Fútbol Absoluta
Fútbol Femenino

Posted by: Kit Seleccionador | April 14, 2008 12:15 PM
=========================================

The Spaniards may do as they please, just as Brits can refer to a flashlight as a torch. So what? When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Posted by: tri-village | April 14, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Gotta love the obligatory 'that's not soccer' crowd's comments.

I'm kind of disappointed that there were so few.

Must be so bored that they can't be bothered anymore.

Posted by: seahawkdad | April 14, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Darn, I forgot to send out my Misogynist Pride Day cards.

Posted by: Amanda | April 14, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Must be so bored that they can't be bothered anymore.

Posted by: seahawkdad | April 14, 2008 12:23 PM
===================

Many of them were at the Misogynist Pride Parade. They have road rash on their knuckles and it hurts them to type.

Posted by: I-270, Exit 1 | April 14, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Wait, I thought soccer was football for girls? You mean males play too? God save us.

Posted by: Kornheiser | April 14, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Males play. But apparently not on a men's national team.

Posted by: Amanda | April 14, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

I've always thought of this blog as the online equivalent of a cocktail party. At a cocktail party, if you saw several people talking about a topic that was of interest to them, but not to you, you would simply move along and find someone else to talk to. To barge into their conversation, simply to proclaim your own lack of interest, would be considered unspeakably rude, and quite frankly rather infantile. I don't know why things should be any different here.

Posted by: tri-village | April 14, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

When they weren't snoozing, did they indicate that it was a pro-Canada crowd, as one might expect?

Posted by: tri-village | April 14, 2008 12:00 PM

Actually, yes.

Based on the reaction for the crowd during warm-ups, it seems they will be cheering for Canada tonight.

MatchTracker stats still don't match the post-match write-up.

Posted by: sitruc | April 14, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Kit Manager:

Thank you!! That 'USMNT' nonsense gives me the creeps. You use that phrase, you may as well be wearing a "I'm a Soccer Mom" t-shirt and cutting orange slices.

Posted by: D.C. | April 14, 2008 11:52 AM
=======================

check the us federation site, where the Mens Mational Team is referred to as such, and as the MNT. Of course maybe we're the only country where the womens team is better than the mens.

Those soccer moms are slicing oranges for the future fan base of MLS, and until you capture those kids (at least 50% of whom are female) you can continue to whine about US players getting paid 13000/year. Which is all they're worth (actually probably more than they're worth, in terms of revenue produced) until you start putting fans in seats and getting TV money.

And finally: "Please don't waste our time with this nonsense. This is not soccer." There are plenty of people who feel this way about MLS, when they can get La Liga, EPL, Bundesliga on TV.

Posted by: WNT Fan | April 14, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Gotta love the obligatory 'that's not soccer' crowd's comments.

Posted by: seahawkdad | April 14, 2008 12:23 PM

Oh, it's soooooooo soccer. The qualitative differences between "soccer" and "football" are huge.

"Soccer" will never overcome its effeminate association (no pun intended). And the more we use USMNT, or refer to the US Women's Team as "USA", the more that stigmatization will continue.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to put on my cleats and bat around my hockey ball. Go Caps!

Posted by: Kit Manager | April 14, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Actually, of the top 10 womens teams in FIFA rankings, only Brazil's women are ranked lower than their men. US, Germany, Sweden, Norway, North Korea, France, Denmark, Canada, Japan -- womens teams are higher.

Posted by: WNT fan | April 14, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Dude, you're talking about effeminate and signing as "kit manager"? The mens game in America, whatever you choose to call it, would be less delicate if Americans stopped with the silly British affectation.

And it's not exactly manly to cut down the women.

Posted by: WNT fan | April 14, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

I enjoy the Woman's game. They don't tackle the talented players. Skill tends to rule the day. But US vs Canada "No es muy dramatico." US 4 Canada 1.

Posted by: Harpo | April 14, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

I'll be there. These U.S. athletes represent my country, and I plan to support them.

Posted by: Juan-John | April 14, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

But US vs Canada "No es muy dramatico." US 4 Canada 1.
==========================================

This, less than 24 hours after they played 120. You may be right, Harpo, especially if Estadio RFK can work its magic, but I think the gap is narrowing.

Posted by: tri-village | April 14, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

I'll be there. These U.S. athletes represent my country, and I plan to support them.

Posted by: Juan-John | April 14, 2008 1:56 PM
==========================================

Precisely. I doubt that many students and alumni of schools that participated in March Madness wrote off the whole affair, merely because of the existence of the NBA.

Posted by: tri-village | April 14, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Precisely. I doubt that many students and alumni of schools that participated in March Madness wrote off the whole affair, merely because of the existence of the NBA.

Posted by: tri-village | April 14, 2008 2:26 PM

Men's March Madness?

Posted by: ??? | April 14, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Men's March Madness?
==========================================

Good question. But in this case, it is a registered trademark, so the NCAA calls the shots as to how the term is used:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_madness#March_Madness_.26_History_of_the_Term

Posted by: tri-village | April 14, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

This, less than 24 hours after they played 120. You may be right, Harpo, especially if Estadio RFK can work its magic, but I think the gap is narrowing.

-----------------

Did the Olympic qualifying championship count for anything besides pride? Were both teamsa lready qualified a la the men's teams? If true, then perhaps that result doesn't mean a whole lot. Then again, this RFK match is onyl a friendly anyway, and one could say the same thing.

Posted by: Phil | April 14, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

It's already been stated. When the stars and stripes is raised for any USA national team playing soccer close to home, they need our support. Local support is critical to showing the scheduler powers that be that ANY national team playing here (ahem, men's WC qualifier or friendly, etc.) will be supported.

Save me a seat (make that 6 seats). Not for $150 though. Orange slices optional. They do make a nice twist to a malted beverage.

Posted by: MR Caretaker | April 14, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Who knows what will happen @RKF. The Canadians may be motivated after the PK loss and intent to prove something. The US may be upset about missed opportunities and intent to prove something. Or, they could just have a kickaround while trying to keep in shape for the Olympics.

Either way, I share MR Caretaker's sentiments. I will have two fillings!

Posted by: I-270, Exit 1 | April 14, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Did the Olympic qualifying championship count for anything besides pride? Were both teamsa lready qualified a la the men's teams?
=========================================

Yes and yes. But it appears from the match report that both teams fielded fairly strong lineups, resting only a few of their top players.

Besides, the individual players on both sides have something to play for, from yesterday through July. The Olympics have a weird rule that says that teams shall consist of 22 players; however, players 19 through 22 will be alternates who will never get near the bench, let alone the pitch, except in case of injury to someone in the first 18. (I posted a link to the FIFA site that explains all this some time ago.) So the 20 players who represented the USA in Juarez, along with Scurry, Mitts, Wagner, and a perhaps a couple of dark horses, will be competing for 18 slots; similarly with Canada.

In particular, the rules say that there shall be three keepers, two of whom will be in the first 18, so Barnhart and Scurry are in a duel for the second slot.

Posted by: tri-village | April 14, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Orange slices optional. They do make a nice twist to a malted beverage.
==========================================

Should we expect a quality wheat beer to be on tap at Estadio RFK?

Posted by: tri-village | April 14, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

I forgot to mention Ellertson, but she will be on the obstetric DL until sometime in May, so that doesn't give her much time to make her case for a spot on the roster.

Posted by: tri-village | April 14, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

What's a $20 ticket like @ RFK for a game like this?
Do they open up the upper part of the stadium? what's the 70 dollar ticket like?
And what age do they start charging for children to come in @ RFK?

Posted by: Dadryan. | April 14, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

DC United sent out email today that says Club 70; Mezz 50; VIP 35; Premium 26; Spectator 18. Those categories match up to a color-coded seating chart on the DCU website. Upper deck probably depends on selling out the bowl as with DCU -- although I think they would sell more tickets to all games if they opened it up more predictably.

Posted by: WNT fan | April 14, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Dadyran: Here's the link:

http://www.ticketmaster.com/event/1500408BE7EAF64F

If you click on the seating chart link, you'll get a diagram of the stadium as it applies to DCU, which is only somewhat helpful. My guess is that the $20 seats are behind the endlines. I don't see the $70 (club) seats being offered through Ticketmaster, but they are almost surely those walled-off spaces in the mezzanine level.

Ticketmaster quotes a price range for upper-deck seats, but when I searched for some, they said none could be found, which probably means that the upper deck will be opened only if sales exceed 20,000 or so, which is unlikely, especially with these overpriced seats.

I see nothing that pertains specifically to children.

Posted by: tri-village | April 14, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Dan Steinberg has a couple of threads on the US National Team.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog/

Posted by: I-270, Exit 1 | April 14, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the info folks>
I am guessing the age when kids start paying is around 3 but i suppose kids may enter the stadium and sit on your lap a little longer?
My Daughter will still only be 1 in may but it could get my wife and I and the ankle biter out of the house for a little fun.
Although I think my daughter would be truely amazed sitting up behind the Barra Brava at a United game I think it might be more appropriate for the USA/Canada match.

Posted by: Dadryan. | April 14, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of BB, is there any organized support for the WNT, along the lines of Sam's Army?

Posted by: tri-village | April 14, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

tri-village, it may not be 4-1, but the play sounded and appeared to be very lopsided. I don't doubt that the Canadians are closing the gap, but it still felt as though they took a step back the other night. Following MatchTracker and reading articles after the match, one would think Mcleod had the match of her life in goal. Also, the US didn't start or finish with their best lineup.

Posted by: sitruc | April 14, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Women's game. Don't care.... Yawn!!!

Posted by: nick | April 14, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Why do people who don't like women's soccer feel the need to comment at all? That still baffles me.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Why do people who don't like women's soccer feel the need to comment at all? That still baffles me.

Posted by: | April 15, 2008 11:37 AM
=========================================

Precisely. There's all kinds of stuff that appears in this space that doesn't particularly interest me: Mexican leagues; most news concerning MLS clubs other than DCU; pregame predictions; postgame ratings; etc. If everyone responded to everything that didn't interest him/her with "Don't care.... Yawn!!!", that would soon account for 97 percent of the posts to this blog. The vast majority of us just skip over stuff that doesn't interest us. Why can't everyone else?

Posted by: tri-village | April 15, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company