User talk:Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden

WOSO Task Force News: April 2018
Subscribe or Unsubscribe here. Sent by: Hmlarson (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Women's Football / Soccer Task Force News: July 2019
Subscribe or Unsubscribe here. Sent by: Hmlarson (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 03:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)

Women's Football / Soccer Update > October 2020
Subscribe or Unsubscribe here. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:2020 Damallsvenskan


Hello, Mango från yttre rymden. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "2020 Damallsvenskan".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 00:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

United States women's national soccer team results
Hello. Regarding this edit of yours, you have raised several points:
 * Sweden stats — Not at all doubting the source you referred to. Indeed I have been unable find the source used to compile this table, so you could very well be correct as far as I know. In my most recent updates, I have simply added the latest match data and recalculated. How long has this been going on? Well here is the article's first edit. Perhaps User:DSparrow14 could shed some light?
 * Win% — Please see Winning percentage. A "winning percentage" in sports is commonly expressed in 0.xxx format. While I am aware that strictly speaking this is not a percentage, it is equivalent in value. In the context of sports statistics, it is not only an acceptable format, it is the preferred format.
 * Draws — With respect to calculating winning percentage in most all sports, a tie or draw is commonly counted as $1/2$ win: $$\text{winning percentage} = {\text{wins}+0.5\cdot\text{ties}\over\text{total games}}$$
 * A draw should not be counted as a loss, which is what your calculation does: $$\text{winning percentage} = {\text{wins}\over\text{total games}}$$ a formula which should only be used when ties are not involved.

I'd prefer if you would at least partially revert your edit to restore the win percentage and format, but if you would rather wait and give DSparrow14 a chance to reply, that's fine with me for now. --DB1729 (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello again. It has been nearly three days and no response. I am going to revert your change and link to this page. Maybe you or someone else will chime in and we can go from there. --DB1729 (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello ! Thank you for your message! Sorry for the late reply. Actually, for me this is not late. I'm only on Wikipedia in on-and-off doses, and when I'm on I usually only visit once or twice a week. I will put up a notification on my talk page soon.


 * The link I provided is the official document from the Swedish Football Association. I see now that the document don't give info on were it comes from. They list all matches from the very beginning in that document, but it's only updated every December/January. You would think the governing body is right. So I took that and added the result of the latest match.
 * Wow, I have never heard of that. I don't like it, but it's apparently a thing. Is it American, something else or just non-European? How ignorant am I? O:-) Seeing that the article only comes in 3 East Asian languages beyond English I take it that it's rather obscure. By the time I realised draws were counted I had already come to the end with my recalculations, so I figured I might just post it and then if I'm wrong it could be reverted. I think the way the numbers are presented is stupid, serves best at confusing most readers in my opinion, but I'm probably not going to spend time on lobbying for that thing, having i.e. 54.3% instead of 0.543. Unless you insist.
 * Btw, I'm excited for the Olympic football, draw is in 11 hours and 38 minutes. Cheers! --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for replying! Quite understandable that you only check here intermittently. No problem.
 * Win% format — Without doing some research, I really don't know if it's a convention used more so in the U.S. or not. I live in the U.S. and I see the format used often, but I really have no strong opinion either way. They are equivalent. I think it's just best to stay with the established convention that has been long used on this and related pages.
 * Draws and win% calculation — A draw = a $1/2$ win. It should not be counted as a loss. I don't see how it could be fairly calculated any other way. A team with a record of 9 wins, 1 draw and 0 losses should indeed have a better winning percentage than a team with 9 wins and 1 loss (no draws). Again this could be influenced by American sports where this percentage is the primary factor in determining post-season qualification.
 * (Additionally a draw should not be counted as a 'game not played'. An extreme example being a team with 1 win, 9 draws and 0 losses would have a 1.000 or 100% winning percentage — which would be unfair in any sport that uses the percentage.)
 * Part of the problem is calling it a winning percentage, which is even more so a misnomer. See 2020 NFL season where it uses "PCT" for that column. Maybe we could change it to that?
 * Head-to-head record USA v Sweden – It is fine with me if you want to go ahead and change the record per your source. Please either cite the source or include it in the edit summary as you did before, but please leave the win% format as is and calculate it using the $$\text{winning percentage} = {\text{wins}+0.5\cdot\text{ties}\over\text{total games}}$$ formula mentioned earlier. It might also help to link this talk page discussion in the edit summary. Note: I can't guarantee someone else won't revert, but it should be ok.
 * Olympic draw. I didn't know it was today! Thanks for the heads up! I'm sure the USA women and Sweden women will face each other at some point. Seems they always do!
 * Thanks again! --DB1729 (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the win % format was not a convention to me :) I consider myself decently vested in sports, glimpsing at different European leagues from time to time and follow news regularly, and I have never come across it. I precisely interpreted the column literally, strict wins. But sure, let's stick to it. I would suggest that the article about it gets linked from the table, perhaps make the title "Win %" clickable. I'll let you have the honour of implementing my additions ;)
 * Oh they will meet, they definitely will. It's a 50% chance they will be drawn to the same group. If not, they will surely meet in the knock-out stage. Team Sweden is really good now, perhaps better than ever, having developed a really good "position game" (don't know the proper term) that can break through anything and finally counter highly offensive teams that press and stress hard, high technical skills and stamina on all positions, good fighting spirit, and even a few good strikers. I consider a medal a requirement. Netherlands is the other team to watch out for, they beat Germany and crushed Australia this month. FIFA is broadcasting the draw live, check out their Youtube channel if you're interested. I'm going to get some sleep now. Cheers! --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Great! I have made the change as requested including linking winning percentage.
 * I like watching Sweden play and they always play the U.S. very well ;) I enjoy watching all the top women European teams. Germany, France, England/GB, Spain, Netherlands etc. all fun to watch. Shame France and Germany won be there. They should allow more UEFA teams in. And I will check out the live broadcast. Cheers! --DB1729 (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia article: Noice! I wasn't thinking straight enough in the night and forgot some bits. Yes, it would be better if the column title would be something other than "Win %" since we who are unfamiliar with the concept likely interprets the term literally. I cannot figure out what PCT stands for, but I think it's better than Win %. A link is good enough I guess, but personally I would prefer a different title as well. And those were very fair arguments you brought up for that winning percentage thing :)
 * Wikipedia article: Noice! I wasn't thinking straight enough in the night and forgot some bits. Yes, it would be better if the column title would be something other than "Win %" since we who are unfamiliar with the concept likely interprets the term literally. I cannot figure out what PCT stands for, but I think it's better than Win %. A link is good enough I guess, but personally I would prefer a different title as well. And those were very fair arguments you brought up for that winning percentage thing :)


 * Olympics: Did you watch the draw? They sure dragged it out, like the Eurovision Song Contest result :) But I guess they made it as exciting as possible without really overdoing it. Nice with a little history for every team. Should have better bowls though, they could try to at least make it look more random. Oh well.
 * I was a little worried after my previous post that I had made too bold statements, but my goodness, the opening game… Congratulations, you've already won. No gentle warmup there. And then also the far strongest team from pot 4, voiding the standard strategy of resting key players in one of the group matches so they last all the way to the final and have a chance there. A second place in the group is the most likely outcome for Sweden, and being placed in group G means they will face Netherlands in the quarterfinals. This will not hold up for Sweden, it's too much. The Netherlands got an insanely provocatively easy group and will cruise their way through, just doing the bare minimum to proceed, always facing weak(ened) opponents, to once again get swiftly dismissed by USA in the final. I think Sweden is the only team that can take on USA now, but not after having fought through the hardest possible opponents in a tournament. This was possibly the worst that could happen for Sweden in particular and the tournament in general. I guess that's what happens when you don't bribe. This got dull fast. I hope I'm wrong, but I think it's already over.
 * Glad to hear that you like those matches :) They could expand the Olympic women's football to 16 teams without changing the timeframe, making it on par with the men's competition, and I think they will soon. If not to 2024 then to 2028. I don't think there will be more than 4 slots devoted for UEFA/European teams though. FIFA will probably focus on guaranteeing at least 2 slots for every confederation, except Oceania, to give everyone a decent chance, and then have play-offs for the last slots. Looking at how the men's U23 competition is distributed and taking into account the slightly different rankings on the women's side, I believe a 16 team women's competition would be distributed like this:
 * 4 UEFA
 * 2 North American
 * 2 South American
 * 2 African
 * 3 Asian
 * 1 Oceanian (basically New Zeeland)
 * and the last two slots will be a play-off between teams from South America, Africa and Central + North America and possibly also Oceania.
 * The distribution of the top 20 ranked national teams now are
 * 2 North American
 * 5 Asian (Australia (yes, they switched in 2006 or so), Japan, China, both Korea)
 * 1 South American (Brazil)
 * 9 European
 * On place 21-30 is
 * 1 Oceanian (New Zeeland)
 * 1 South Am (Colombia)
 * 1 North Am (Mexico)
 * the rest European
 * Place 31-40
 * 3 Asian
 * 2 SA
 * 1 NA
 * 1 African (Nigeria, highest ranked African on place 38)
 * the rest European
 * If you want more European action, then tune in for the European Championship next year ;) All the Nordic nations have qualified, as well as the usual suspects, a few lesser known, a few newly established, and an oddity in Northern Ireland who surprisingly beat Ukraine in the play-off. But that was perhaps not exactly what you wanted ;)


 * This was a long sidetrack, but it was fun thinking about. Will be great to come back to in the future and see how far off I was. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * PCT is an abbreviation for percentage, but it would be linked PCT in the article. Do you still prefer it to Win%?
 * It's still a misnomer, but not a "double misnomer". See Percentage. It's surprising sometimes how U.S.-specific some things are.
 * Yes I did watch the draw. Thanks again for that alert.
 * Please understand while the brief chats about the sport are enjoyable; a long, detailed discussion about its intricacies, in written form anyway, for me is not. Also I think WP is not the proper forum for such unless it directly relates to improving the project. We're likely both already guilty of pushing the limits. I believe there's a guideline somewhere, but I'll spare you.
 * Don't think of this as an admonishment. It's more, 'I really don't want to type that much'. ;) --DB1729 (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi again. I hadn't heard back and decided to drop by and I was a little disturbed how my last post read. Far more negative tone than I intended. I failed to mention that I actually enjoyed reading through your last reply. I was tempted (still am) to write about 3 or 4 long paragraphs in response, but didn't feel like typing that much (still don't). Anyway hoping I didn't somehow offend you; and still waiting to hear if you want me to go forward with changing Win% → PCT. --DB1729 (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It was disheartening to read, but I was mostly concerned with how to reply in the article matter. I was just about to post today after having written a draft reply yesterday, but then there was an edit conflict that didn't show up until I pushed Publish, so I had to redo it and thus wait another couple of hours because I was out of time. Thank you for your concern, that was encouraging.
 * About the USWNST results article do I not really know what to really think about the labelling, and I think I'm not in a position to decide that. It's an American article, so I guess American standards apply. They're both roughly equally half-bad to me. There's a link now, so I guess it's okay now.
 * I got carried away with the Olympics football talk. I was thinking deep into it and wanted a reason to write it down somewhere, and this seemed like a great opportunity to post it publicly and also be easy for me to find again in the future. I don't engage in proper sports forums, or any with a decent sports section, but occasionally there's an urge. It was mostly for myself, but still. Figured a user talkpage would be less strict, but you're right. Now you've made me curious though, so I think you could at least spill the beans on if you generally agree or not with my thesis(') ;) Sure, "anything" can happen, and frankly, the silver for Sweden last time was a very lucky shot. They scored just 2 goals during playing time in the entire tournament. But one does not get that kind of luck anytime soon again. Ah, here I go again. Dangit, cannot resist. I never plan to do this, but I ponder much because I want to get it right, and one thing leads to another… But part of my enthusiasm comes from my ambition to write a history section to Sweden women's national football team, so I've been digging deep in my memories and tried to build a mental coherent timeline and remember details to give me leads to follow. I will spend most of my free time on that and probably be absent for a while. Actually, on second thought, your thoughts might not be too off topic, it could give me a few leads, especially if you also drop a link or several. So there's your motivation ;) PS. I just learned that Fiji lies north of New Zeeland, has a large Indian population, and is the second best Oceanian women's team, ranked 67 ;) --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was afraid of that. Sorry.
 * Another thing I failed to mention was that I had linked this section when I made the first change we agreed upon, and I expected to be linking it again if we agreed to further refine the table. My concern was that another editor would have to sift through too much irrelevant chatter, just to see how we managed to arrive at our consensus. Doesn't that make sense? I should have explained that before, and in that respect, probably good that you collapsed the long part.
 * Regarding the Sweden team, I think you should be a bit more optimistic. That silver was a lot more than just luck, and good teams tend to "create" their own "good luck". Over here I've heard Sweden referred to as a "tournament team". Maybe they just mean 'they play us tough'. If they mean they play at their best when it means the most, I agree. That's what the best teams do.
 * You shouldn't look at a difficult path to a championship as a negative. It should be embraced as a challenge and an opportunity. At the WWC a lot of people were looking at the opponents the US would go through at the start of knockout stage: Spain—France—England—final (Germany, we thought would be waiting, or Sweden) looked almost impossible to get through without a loss somewhere. But the team relished the challenge. A common saying: "To be the best, you have to beat the best".
 * Great idea for a history section! You should do it. The USWNT has an entire article on their history, but it has been left to fall out of date surprisingly. I have updated the tournament results but little more.
 * I'm interested in creating an article on the Sweden—USA rivalry. We already have US rivalry articles with Japan and Mexico. Perhaps you would be interested helping out with that, when or if I decide to do it.
 * I guess we will let the results page and the Win% label stand as is. As you said, it is a US-related article after all. --DB1729 (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistent numbers from the Swedish Football Association
I noticed this morning ussoccer.com updated the record vs Sweden so I decided to look into all this further. The discrepancy with the Sweden source is the existence of a 5-1 match on 11 July 1987. This is in conflict with this source which has USA losing 0-1 to Norway on that same date and location, with no mention of a 1-5 loss to Sweden anywhere that I can find. I am going to correct the record vs Sweden based on the two American sources, for the US article only. DB1729 (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It was marvellous. I replied to everything else "down there" and also wrote a little in the open.
 * Ah, so you found out. *dark sinister voice* That was unfortunate. Now I have to dispose off of you. No, but seriously, good digging. I discovered it a while before my summer hiatus, but opted not so mention it until I had contacted SvFF. They themselves post conflicting numbers. Looking in the records it indicates that it was an American U19 team that Sweden faced. https://www.svenskfotboll.se/matchfakta/sverige-usa--u19-landskamper-dam-senior/1568867/ Pretty weird. It's been over a month now and they haven't got back to me, and I don't think they ever will reply because they never had on previous inquiries and might not even had read my e-mail. Nor have they changed the collection document. Possibly will it happen when they make the annual update. But what if they don't? How should that be dealt with regarding the Sweden article? Put a disclaimer note next to the source and in the row for United States saying that the main used source is wrong and disregarded for the 5–1 match in the table? Could those two matchguides be used as references to explain that with possibly also a link to this discussion? Or the American statistics? Or does that count as original research?
 * The head-to-head collection document issued in January counts to 7 wins, 11 draws and 23 losses with a goal difference of 40–72 including the 5–1 win in 1987 included. But the matchguide before the friendly in April states 6 wins, 11 draws and 23 losses with GD 35–71. https://www.svenskfotboll.se/nyheter/landslag/2021/04/matchguide-sverige-usa/ To the Olympics match they had again included the 5–1 match in the total numbers. https://www.svenskfotboll.se/nyheter/landslag/2021/07/matchguide-sverige-usa/ --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well the U19 game explains it. I think an explanatory note would be fine. You might not necessarily have to go into much detail of your research. Just say the general source above is contradicted by the following sources for this entry, and list the links to each source you and I have mentioned here.
 * Or you can just specifically cite the head-to-head record with USA, and if anyone questions it, explain it on the talk page. Maybe someone else will have a better idea. But I will leave it up to you. I expect it will be fine whatever you decide. DB1729 (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Collaborated improvements on articles about Sweden and US women's national football teams
Since the USWNST results article debate is concluded, I figured we could discuss further on a new headline so to not let other readers think we're still on that somewhere and waste their time.

I spent way way too much time writing this just to realise it was rather unnecessary. But to just discard it would be a waste too, and I would like to give some sort of reply to the game discussion. So here comes another novella, already prepacked in a collapsed box. No obligations to reply here.

Sweden certainly steps up in major tournaments and usually plays their best against USA regardless, those games are a delight even if the mounting losses burns. You're absolutely right about luck when it comes to scoring, I don't think that is luck. But with the strategy at large and specifically by scoring so few goals do I still think it was very lucky to go so far. I was a little wrong about the numbers for the Olympics 2016. Sweden scored 4 goals; 2 in the group stage and 2 in the knockout, but that's still very few – extremely few for a finalist. On the other hand, whatever works is good I guess. But truly powerful teams don't rely on a defensive strategy. The Sweden women's national team was mislead to believe they were on the right track and significantly better than they actually were after the belly flop in the 2015 WC, so when they made a similarly stale performance in the Euro 2017 it was a bit of a disaster. One time is a fluke, but two is serious. The world had moved forward, and an upcoming Netherlands rolled over Sweden in the quarter-final. Numbers didn't reflect how embarrassing the Swedes' performance was. They could barely find the goal despite having a decent ball possession, they were so unsharp and passive. Nobody wanted to question Pia Sundhage, at least not much, as she is quiet respected and Swedes are afraid of conflicts, but between the lines there was some blame on her for the wrong turn with the national team. At least that's how I remember it.

Sweden's problem is (wo)manpower. There are currently few other players beyond the core that holds up. Crucial alternatives Anna Anvegård and Hanna Bennison have been injured for months and are just now making some substitutions. Similar story for Nathalie Björn. I expected them to be fully recovered for the Olympics, but it doesn't seem so. Elin Rubensson was absent all last year due to pregnancy and has just recently returned. Madelen Janogy lost her way last year and is yet to return to her former hopes and promises. Just today it was reported that Linda Sembrant will miss the Olympics as she has injured her knee and needs to undergo surgery. That is a major setback as she's an absolute crucial centre back and core of the team these days next to Caroline Seger. There aren't many more suitable players, and many of the possible replacements are largely untried The ranks are very thin for small countries like Sweden, and particularly now, and it's too late to process new players and constellations at this point. I can count to 14 given players for the squad, including goalkeepers, but not all of them are excellent, some rely heavily on a stronger teammate to work well. The last 4 ones will be a complete gamble and more of a necessary evil than a good addition.

No other country can match the stamina of the absolute top end teams that are Germany and USA. That's pretty much their success recipe. While Sweden can match them in occasional top-tier exhibition games it's a different story in a full tournament. Sweden's strategy has always relied on picking their fights within a tough match, and also step down a bit for 1 or possibly even 2 group matches overall when there's less stiff opposition, and only go absolute full throttle for one or two matches in a tournament. It's not just me. It might not be a fully conscious decision to do so, but that's how it is. Germany and USA on the other hand can afford to go full throttle through an entire tournament, and turn lower class teams into punching bags just for the heck of it. That's why USA got a penalty in the last minute last time; Sofia Jakobsson was finished, exhausted after 80 minutes of maximum power, possibly more than she's supposed to. I guess Gerhardson wanted to see it through and bet on that they could still hold it together, but they didn't. Sweden played near their maximum capacity in that match while USA on the other hand had another gear to put in if they wanted to, which was noted by Swedish commentators on SVT, so it's not just me.

So all this combined with a very unfavourable draw means my hopes of a medal have faded. I will watch and enjoy the Olympics football after all, but it's bitter that Sweden cannot field all the best players going into a tournament because of injuries when they are better than ever when healthy, and that that likely will be the nail in the coffin for a medal pursuit. That's not how the game is supposed to be played. The Olympics limitation of 18 players have certainly leveled the field, but 14 players is the minimum needed for one match regardless, so everyone beyond that, to give some sort of relief and rotate players, are more or less downtrades.
 * Thanks for all that. Interesting reading. You do seem to be very knowledgeable in the sport. Far more than I anyway.
 * In my previous comment about Sweden being a "tournament team" that was in reference to silver in 2016 Olympics and bronze at 2019 WWC; strong performances in the last two major tournaments, as we fans in the US see it. Since we don't play in the Euros, we (most fans here) don't really follow it closely or care about it much; and as such don't regard it as a "major", even though probably everyone in Europe does.
 * I'm sorry to hear about Sweden's roster problems. I always hope for everyone to be healthy and at full strength for the big tournaments. There's almost always an issue or two with every team, but it's very disappointing when it gets that bad.
 * USA's depth is regarded as a bit of a buffer to that problem, but it's really only true with our forwards. The depth isn't that bad after our top four midfielders, but the drop-off is fairly steep considering how good those four are. The drop-off is very steep after our starters in the backfield though. I don't trust Sonnet or Davidson at centerback at all. They have both made too many mistakes and burned too often given the so few times they've been challenged, though they have shown some signs of improvement on occasion.
 * I think sometimes that USA's biggest advantage is the time the squad spends with each other. Together as a national team, they play a lot of matches and I get the impression they spend more time in camp and practicing as a unit than do most other top national teams. If it was the other way around, well, I think things would be a lot different. --DB1729 (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi again. First off, well done by the Sweden women's team!! They looked great! Most disturbingly to me, they looked clearly the better team. Nearly every pass of SWE looked sharp and on target. Opposite for US. Their speed. They are faster than USA! I mean waaayyy faster! USA's back line is slow, given, but SWE looked faster at virtually every position. And fitness? Didn't seem to be an issue with SWE. In fact, they looked very much the fitter of the two. I could go on and on.
 * But down to business. DB1729 (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * That was one of the best football match I've ever seen, all categories. What a masterful performance. Such a tactical triumph. To see an equally skillful and at the core stronger adversary be so completely outmaneuvered to the point where they shrug their arms in disbelief was an immense experience. So beautiful. I certainly did not expect that after all setbacks, and when I heard just after I switched on my TV that Magdalena Eriksson wasn't even on the substitution bench due to a small injury, I thought it was already over then. They had lost their final defensive pillar and I expected a massacre. I considered switching off because I was so bummed by it, but I was loaded for this and had reserved time for it, so I figured I might just watch it anyway. I couldn't believe my eyes what was unfolding. I was standing up the entire match out of both excitement and anxiety. I was certain the American onslaught would come any moment. Or that the Swedes would run out of fuel or do something stupid, which they usually do once or twice per match. But the game continued the same way through the whole match. The only disappointment was that they didn't score more :P
 * Unfortunately it went slowly downhill from there and ended with the most agonising ritual suicide right at the finish line. I'm happy for Christine Sinclair though. She's done everything she could in her career now, and can retire in peace. Speaking of Canada, I'll probably have to partially reconsider my perception of what a good performance is, because obviously a team can defend themselves all the way to a gold. I think it's ridiculous. The Olympics women's football must expand and have a different qualification. How about just picking the round of 16-teams from the World Cup? That would make it an elite tournament without any continent quotas, just as the Olympics should be, and kinda a second chance the year after WC.
 * Third time's the charm for Sweden, perhaps? But the overall performance was still magnificent. I did really not expect it with all the player setbacks, but I knew before all that happened that they could perform like this. Individually I think no-one made a shining performance after the first match, except perhaps for Caroline Seger, but they were good enough. Nathalie Björn made a breakthrough. I have followed her for a few years and seen her potential and waited for this to happen. Others have some more to show. And it turned out that Magda was pretty unreliable the whole tournament and her replacements did it better.
 * For USA on the other hand I believe this is the end of a 3 decade long dominance. Not that they will collapse, just become a "normal" top tier team that have their ups and downs, no longer being completely outstanding and untouchable.


 * Now I'm stoked for the Euro 2022. Sweden still has plenty of potential to realise, while the other "usual suspects" are in decline. Spain will be the one to watch out for, and Belgium is upcoming. I don't blame you for not being interested in the Euros, but it's definitely a major tournament. And now I'm going to go beyond all the boundaries of Wikipedia, but I'll take the risk of a reprimand. If you've never been to Europe but have been thinking about it, I strongly encourage you to come to the Euro 2022 final match. It's Wembley, it's England, the greatest football stadium in the world with the most die hard football fans on the planet. If you like football this much as you have displayed here, it's going to be an experience for life, and this is at bit of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. If you have the possibility, start saving and planning now. ⅔ of the tickets are already sold by now. https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/mediaservices/mediareleases/news/026c-12eab8371a5f-21cba40cb449-1000--pre-sale-ticket-targets-smashed/ They all speak English there, so that wont be a problem, albeit in a funny accent for you ;) I would go myself if I could. Bring a camera so you can upload pictures on Wikimedia afterwards, preferably something useful for this. See, I made this whole section a legitimate conversation ;)


 * I did not expect Sonnett to be part of the USWNT. Your doubts were justified IMO. She was in Damallsvenskan last year, I saw her a few times. She was a mediocre defender for a top club, not really world class from what I saw. On the other hand she was obviously there only because she couldn't play in America, so perhaps there were commitment issues.


 * I would say that the large amount of time USWNT spends together is only a very close second reason to their success. I noticed how large and muscular the American players were in the WWC 2019. They felt like twice as large as the dutch players in the final. If a player is too tired they effectively become a ghost of themselves, fooling teammates to believe they have an alternative available to them that effectively isn't there, at least in the way they are used to. That strikes double as it attracts opponents to exploit. If a team or player lacks muscle strength to begin with, they will not just get tired more easily, they will also not be able to keep up with quick moves and be limited in what they can do overall, because they will always be one step behind and a second too late against significantly stronger opponent. Tactics can do little to change the game under such circumstances. I hope that made sense because I'm not sure how to explain it properly. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree, with everything. But the Sweden game was painful for me to watch. I think it rattled the US, to get beat that badly, and they never quite recovered. I can't get over how they still managed scrape out bronze after everything. The gold medal match was, for me, great to watch. It was so nice to sit back and watch a game that I knew would be good (and it was great!) and I would be happy for whoever won. I am happy for Sinclair and for our friends and neighbors up north, but as it turns out, I was just gutted for Sweden and Seger. It would've been so great if she would've got the winning PK, but instead...heartbreaking. --DB1729 (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The top paragraph in the collapsed section will be mentioned in the history section if I can muster to dig up the necessary sources and phrase it decently for an encyclopedia. Those are the challenges with this. My English skills are insufficient for academic styled text. I can decently well phrase things of my own opinion and experiences, but when it comes to formal and neutral point of view text, it is much harder for me. And it's very hard to find records of historical events of SWNFT. One would think it's easy to find for such a popular sport and team, but support is very passive.

I'm planning on making a complete overhaul of the SWNFT article and fill in everything in accordance to the MoS. I'm currently, when I can, scrutinising every edit ever made for the SWNFT article to copy all matches ever mentioned there, find lost content and possibly get leads to other things worth to be mentioned. It will eventually result in a result subpage. Then I will start to look for history pieces on the world wide web and possibly elsewhere, and I will invite some people to contribute. But before I can post I have a bunch of meta stuff to deal with, like improving the MoS and fixing a template or two. And before that there are some other things regarding Wikipedia at large I would like to take care of first, and the outcome of that will likely decide my future commitment.

I have just skimmed through the USWNST article and I find it odd that it's not even a GA when the one for Germany is an FA.

Terrific idea with a rivalry article! I had thought of mentioning that in the Sweden article. I would gladly collaborate. I already have my hands pretty full both on Wikipedia and IRL though. I don't know what timeframe you're aiming for but I will be done with all I've mentioned here… this year. I hope. I'm aiming for October but wont promise anything. On the other hand most of those other things involve lots of waiting for responses, replying and gathering info at a comfortable pace, so there's certainly room for a concurrent collaboration work. Just set the bar a little higher than the Japan—USA one so it doesn't get nominated for deletion :E But I trust you on that, you are meticulous. If you start I could join in. I'm not good at finding American sources, and I know Swedish, so this would be a perfect combo. I might come across as a football connoisseur, but I'm really not. These are. It's just that when I fall down a rabbit hole I tend to stay there for a while. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I've added a response to the collapsed section if you don't see it right away.
 * I am in no hurry at all about my article idea. There is no deadline after all. It may be October or even later before I start, and again, if I decide to do it all. I haven't even looked for good sources on the topic yet so, it could easily be scrapped. I will keep you updated though. Thanks for the support and enthusiasm.
 * Good luck with all your efforts. Sounds promising. I may check on your progress and help out if I can. Take care until later. --DB1729 (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Your dedication and kindness is very encouraging. Do you think that the Sweden–USA match could justify its own article? It's at least something to focus on in a rivalry article.
 * I have made a rough draft to a history section for team Sweden. I would like to send it to you in case I become unable to complete it. I would like to keep it to myself for as long as I'm around, but if I become MIA for more than 6 months you have my permission to use it. You should be able to send me an e-mail from my user page. Look in the Tools section in the left sidebar.
 * I can safely tell you that I wont be finished until next year, and most likely will it take a full year from now. This has turned into a bit of a research project. I have amassed piles of newspapers and dosens of links that I intend to read through and piece together into a large section, possibly even a complete article on its own. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I have lost motivation/interest for creating a rivalry article. It's not because of the loss I assure you, because that match actually had me thinking about it again. I may change my mind sooner or later. If I do, I will let you know. DB1729 (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that. But there's plenty of time to give it a second thought :) --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Request/suggestion
Hi. I can see you put a huge amount of work into this edit. However such a huge change in a single edit makes it hard to track all the changes that were made. If you look at the recent edit history of Formula One, I have made a lot of changes, but in smaller steps to allow fellow editors the opportunity to review changes in these smaller steps and amend as they see fit. This isn't a policy or a guideline, just a bit of advice based on my experience. Mark83 (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you recognise my effort, but your actions speak a very different language, namely that of a vandal. I have refrained from wasting my time with looking at all your atrocities, the first one was bad enough. Removing an entire paragraph because there was no date mentioned in it, when it takes place shortly after the events in the previous paragraph, and there was a date in the reference, is some of the dumbest things I have ever seen on Wikipedia. And that came from an admin. It seems you butchered everything because you were unable to read properly. I intended to post a discussion thread explaining my edit. I intentionally overcited so that readers would be able to scrutinise my work and see where everything came from, But finalising the edit took longer than expected, it was in the middle of the night for me, the subjekt wasn't urgent, so I figured I could wait to the next day. But alas, no. It wasn't possible make incremental changes to the article, as it was a mess, with info and citations all over. I'm going to reinstate my edit someday, and if you have any issues with it, we will discuss it on the talk page first. Good day. --Mango från yttre rymden 12:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2022
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification (inter-confederation play-offs), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. ''FIFA have not announced the rankings to be used. Do not replace them until an announcement is made.'' — Jkudlick &#x2693; (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * These template message are meant for disruptive editing, not regular edit disputes. You abused this to shut me down and have things your way. Shame on you! I will bring this up at some point. My edit and others who made similar edits had nothing to do with the seed. --Mango från yttre rymden 12:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)