I fell asleep when the US was only up 7-0 in the match against Thailand last night. I'll admit I was a bit disappointed by the final score; 13-0 is just so
unseemly. I don't like gloating; I'm embarrassed by hugely obnoxious gestures of my country-mates; and big wins feel
loud, a trait I am endeavoring to teach my family not to be.
But then I awoke to lots of criticism of the US women, as if they had done something wrong by playing really well and being proud of it.
Someone asked if the same criticism would have been leveled at the US Men's National Team, which I found laughable, because the US men just aren't that good. But it did make me wonder how much of this does have to do with sexist perceptions. So I'm comparing this to the Dream Team at the Olympics.
I'll point out a few things here:
There are only 3 subs in an international soccer match. There is no putting in a second team or resting the starters.
The first US Dream Team in 1992 had a 350 point differential over 8 games. That means they were averaging more than 40 points more than their opponents per game. I seem to recall comments about how lucky their opponents were to play with the best, and how insulting it would have been for the Dream Team to quit shooting at an international competition.
Thailand may have been out of their league last night, but they are a team who had to win a spot to be here at the World Cup. In the Asian qualifying tournament, they won a match 6-1 and beat out teams who defeated other teams 10-1. It is too bad that women's soccer is so poorly supported elsewhere, but winning big is not a US thing, or something to be ashamed of.
Posts
