The Amandine Henry signing and what it means

Dan Lauletta March 16, 2016 92
Can Amandine Henry help fill more NWSL stadiums? (Photo Copyright Linehan Photography for The Equalizer)

Can Amandine Henry help fill more NWSL stadiums? (Photo Copyright Linehan Photography for The Equalizer)

After more than two months of speculation and anticipation, Amandine Henry finally has a signed contract to play in NWSL.  The Silver Ball winner from last summer’s World Cup will join the Thorns when her Lyon contract runs out—possibly as early as June 1.  The announcement brought with it the expected buzz, as did the initial reports in January.  But what does it really mean?

Henry is good and she can help any team:  Mark Parsons described Henry perfectly in his statement that was included in the announcement from the Thorns.  “Her ability to control the game in the center of midfield helps everyone else do their job better,” the Thorns head coach said.  “She has exceptional passing range, is very intelligent on and off the ball, and can score special goals as she proved in the World Cup last year.”

{MORE:  Thorns make it official, sign Amandine Henry}

Henry can dictate attacking play from a deeper position than any woman in the world, and as Parsons noted, can also be dangerous when advancing into more forward positions.  Simply put there is hardly a team on the planet she can’t help.  Thorns fans must already be losing sleep over the prospects of Henry orchestrating for the likes of Tobin Heath, Dagny Brynjarsdottir, and Nadia Nadim.

Henry won’t be a traditional defensive midfielder in terms of tackling and ball-winning, but her presence and technical skill will still put loads of pressure on opposing offences not to give the ball away in vulnerable positions.  In short there are very few if any areas of the game where Henry is not capable of making the Thorns better.

Who will lose playing time when Henry arrives? This is always an unfortunate side effect of big signings that happen in the middle of the season.  On the flipside, these things have a tendency to work themselves out.  Players get injured or go off form, opening up playing time for the newcomers.  Overcrowding can be an issue, but on the scale of issues that confront coaches it ranks pretty close to the bottom.

With that said, the name to watch is Allie Long.  A fixture in the Thorns midfield since day one, Long can play the top or bottom of the midfield though not necessarily out wide.  With Lindsay Horan in the team and battling for an Olympic spot, Long would seem to be the odd woman out among those three.  Then again Parsons could always resort to a 4-2-3-1 with Horan and Henry sitting deep and Long flanking two wide midfielders on top of them.  But that would mean only one between Christine Sinclair, Nadia Nadim, and Jodie Taylor seeing the field.

In truth there are several combinations and shapes that could work and there will be at least one good player that loses significant time when Henry is ready to jump in.  And it very well might be a delicate balancing act for Parsons, albeit one he won’t mind having to balance.

What will Henry’s impact be off the field? There is no doubt the signing of Henry sent shock waves around the women’s soccer world.  Her signing is a huge coup for NWSL which does not have the financial clout of the larger clubs in Europe.  We have yet to hear from Henry publicly, but the assumption is that she left more than a little money on the table to make the move to the United States.

It is unlikely though for Henry’s presence in NWSL to transcend the league to the point of attracting fans from outside the existing scope.  Strengthening the league will certainly bring in more soccer fans but will there be a Henry bump? To date the only two players whose profile was large enough to move attendance needles as road players were Mia Hamm and Marta.  And in both of those cases, the impact gradually wore off. (You can make a case for Alex Morgan and post-World Cup Carli Lloyd, but Morgan has spent too much time injured and Lloyd was part of a more broad phenomenon.)

The biggest MLS drawing card has been David Beckham whose mere presence filled stadiums around the country.  The Beckham Effect did not last forever, but it had residual value in that new fans were brought into the league as a result.  Beckham also spread positive thoughts about MLS back to his friends in Europe.

Henry is not likely to sell too many tickets on her own, and her home market is the one that needs the least help in that department.  In the long term her biggest contribution will be if she helps make the league more compelling and if others follow her lead as they did with Beckham.

Biggest signing in U.S. women’s pro soccer ever? Ah yes, what is good news if we can’t immediately smother it to death by making grand determinations about its exact place on the historical timeline?  The answer here, as always, is that it remains to be seen.  If it can have the affect mentioned above and add competitive legitimacy, as well as set the standard for others to follow, it could certainly wind up as the most significant signing.  But let’s take a look at a few others.

In 2000, former U.S. assistant coach Lauren Gregg took a trip to China.  In her new role as Vice President of player personnel, Gregg was charged with convincing the core of the Chinese national team into WUSA.  It was a two-pronged process.  Not only did the players have to agree, but agreements had to be worked out with the stingy Chinese federation.  Gregg landed the two most prominent members of the team—Sun Wen and Gao Hong—plus Liu Ailing, Fan Yunjie, and Wen Lirong.  The inclusion of the Chinese players gave WUSA immediate standing as the gold standard for women’s soccer around the world.

{WATCH:  Sun Wen’s finest moment in WUSA (watch the entire match while you’re at it}

In 2002, the Carolina Courage signed Birgit Prinz from Germany.  The bruising forward arrived during the season and took the league by storm, helping the Courage win the championship.  A year later, Prinz and fellow WUSA player Maren Meinert tormented the United States on the way to giving Germany the World Cup title.

When WPS came around in 2009 it did so with Marta as its most recognizable and marketable star.  Despite an unwillingness to reveal her English in public, Marta literally sold tickets in every market she visited and was a dynamo for three different teams in three seasons.  The difference with Marta is that it was more expected that she would come to the league rather than considered any big deal.  Her exorbitant salary was also a drag on her clubs, the first two of which folded.  She was even passed on in two different drafts.  In the league’s international draft, she went third to the Los Angeles Sol.  A year later, two teams went elsewhere in the dispersal draft before FC Gold Pride took the plunge.

Five years from now, where will Amandine Henry lie in this discussion? It is way too soon to tell, but it will be lots of fun to watch it all unfold.

  • Lorehead

    Also brings to mind Camille Abily in 2009–10.

    • AmyJGraybill


      “my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….


      two days ago new Mc.Laren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Hereoi!1138➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsHour/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:::::oi!1138…….

  • Cc W

    Fantastic news for the league! I’m looking forward to watching her live – but as a Reign fan, I fear that a good PDX team is now formidable and has the most talent in the league. Horan, Tobin, Kling, Henry and if Sinclair can get and stay healthy they will be good.

    • Guest

      + Dagny, Long, Nadim, Taylor, Sonnett

    • bfredrix

      As a Thorns fan, I think the Thorns finally have the better roster on paper but I expect the Reign will still be the better team this season due to team cohesiveness.

      The only Reign expected to be away from the team this year are Solo (Kopmeyer is a more than capable replacement), Rapinoe (kind of used to being without her) and Goransson (new addition so role unclear). One of Seattle’s strengths recently has been their ability to start a consistent lineup at a majority of the positions – especially defense and midfield in which their top choice players saw about 95% of the starts in the past two years. Six of their eight top defenders/midfielders even stayed the same over the two years so there is a lot of chemistry.

      • Guest

        Not sure yet. I need to see more from Dagny and Horan before jumping to that conclusion. I still think the Reign midfield is better than the Thorn’s right now and Reign look very good now without Rapinoe. Pickett is going to be a good LB for them and they still have Hope in net.

      • Steglitz49

        If Laura Harvey can rebuild Antonia’s confidence, Laura will have worked wonders. Antonia was playing great soccer in 2013 when suddenly in the first Euro-17 match, she lost her nerve. Her confidence never returned.

        Though only 25, her career in the top flight ended that summer of ’13. Let’s hope Laura and Antonia’s team mates can weave some magic into this player, who at one time was one of the brightest rising stars of the game.

      • JL

        There is stability in the Seattle roster, but stability can often lead to complacency. They’ve mostly stayed the same while just about every other team has gotten better. That’s a big concern of mine. Also the lack of wide play needs to be addressed.

        • mockmook

          For wide play, you do have options:

          Rapinoe, Mathias, Melis, and Göransson (and probably others).

          • JL

            Rapinoe is injured and will probably miss most, if not all, of the season, Mathias is too hit or miss (and got her ass shut down in their season opener last year by a rookie LB that everyone thinks is terrible), and both Melis and Goransson are unproven in this league. Until I see otherwise, the Reign’s wide play is still a weakness.

        • ARED

          In non-WC/Olympic years I think you would be right (and still may now), but with all of the changes and chaos in rosters/lineups/scheduling, I think the consistency is a big plus.

    • Steglitz49

      You can’t watch her dead — except in a morgue and let’s hope it does not come to that.

      • woso32rooter

        Yo, bro, where’s the love? Shout out to all these hardworking international and domestic players raising the game. NWSL is a bankable trump card;-)

    • ARED

      With respect to Sinclair, I think Nadim and Taylor will have a lot to say about how things come together -and also whether Sinclair is playing.

  • dw

    Any details on contract terms?

    • tonysocref

      As always with the NWSL, contract terms not released.

  • Jesus Gambino

    Don’t tell Donald Trump. Here is one good thing he is not going to destroy.

    • Steglitz49

      He would start a WoSo team if he thought it would help his chances with the electorate.

      • smallchief

        The Trumpettes? The Trumpets? The Drumpf FC? The Bankrupettes?

        • Steglitz49

          The Strumpets?

        • kernel_thai

          MagicJack?

        • Lorehead

          Trump? He’d deport Nadia Nadim, pull them out of Portland, have them barnstorm, and name them the Bloody Wherevers.

          • mockmook

            Trump didn’t get an Ambassador killed in Libya, Trump didn’t bomb a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan (killing 42 people). Etc.

          • Lorehead

            It’s a reference to what he said about Megyn Kelly. What if he owned a women’s soccer team, he’s been disrespectful to a lot of women, ha ha. Look, I’ll happily make a Hillary joke too, but I’m not in the mood to argue politics here right now, okay? And I could argue about that stuff, but it’s not funny.

          • mockmook

            “Funny” how jokes are made about Trump for boorish comments, but no one bats an eye (or harps on it endlessly like Abu Ghraib) when the current joke of a prez bombs a hospital full of innocent people.

          • Lorehead

            Oh, take off your partisan blinders for a moment. Do you know how many weddings in Afghanistan U.S. planes have bombed by mistake since December 2001? Eight. One time in July 2002, we killed 37 people, and on July 6, 2008, we killed 47 people by bombing a wedding party in Nangarhar. So that’s George W. Bush, but what about Bill Clinton? On May 14, 1999, he bombed the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia, causing a major international incident. All of these mistakes were tragic, but in no way is Barack Obama responsible for more of them than his predecessors.

          • mockmook

            And, wasn’t Bush lambasted incessantly for Abu Ghraib (a far less serious matter than killing people at a hospital)?

            Take off your own blinders.

            BTW, why is Odumbo still waging wars? Why is he killing people with drones in countries we are not at war with? Why did he bomb Libya without Congress’ approval? Isn’t he a baby killer? A war criminal?

          • Lorehead

            Look, I realize that it’s an election year and people get a little wound up, myself included. I hope that, someday, you and I can look back and laugh at how I made a joke about what a politician known for saying offensive things about women might call a women’s soccer team, and you asked, in all seriousness, Why aren’t people joking about terrorist attacks and bombs dropped on hospitals and dead little kids?

            The answer, of course, is: Because that’s neither on topic nor funny. The equivalent joke about a Democrat might be something like the Clintons founding The Little Rock Eruption, front jersey sponsored by a certain Mexican bakery.
            Anyway, to totally kill the joke, Bush was deservedly lambasted for Abu Ghraib because Americans did some horrible things there intentionally, for the same reason My Lai was a much greater scandal when a Democrat was president than a bomb hitting the wrong target by mistake.

            Indeed I don’t agree with all of the administration policies you name, but I really don’t see the relevance.

          • Lorehead

            Look, I realize that it’s an election year and people get a little wound up, myself included. I hope that, someday, you and I can look back and laugh at how I made a joke about what a politician known for saying offensive things about women might call a women’s soccer team, and you asked, in all seriousness, Why aren’t people joking about terrorist attacks and bombs dropped on hospitals and dead little kids?

            The answer, of course, is: Because that’s neither on topic nor funny.

            Bush was deservedly lambasted for Abu Ghraib because Americans did some horrible things there intentionally, and some of the instructions they had been given led to that. It’s the same reason My Lai was a much greater scandal when a Democrat was president than a bomb hitting the wrong target by mistake. I have no idea why you bring that up as something he was blamed for unfairly when Bush himself personally apologized for it on national television and called it, “a stain on our national honor.”

            Indeed I don’t agree with all of the administration policies you name, but I really don’t see the relevance.

          • mockmook

            You have apparently never watched a late night show.

            They make “jokes” about all kinds of very serious topics when they want to criticize the person who screwed up. Rarely done to Odumbo.

            And, sorry, Bush did nothing to lead to Abu Ghraib (besides being the person ultimately responsible for all USA forces). Odumbo is responsible for the USA armed forces, too. So, an exact comparison — Odumbo is responsible for 43 dead — but Odumbo isn’t man enough to say he is responsible.

            ———-

            Bottom line, you threw out a gratuitous dig at Trump. I made a point for everyone: Where are the digs at Odumbo (or Hillary) for far more serious matters (like getting people killed)?

            You didn’t have to answer, but you did. Why? Because you see your mission as protecting Dems from criticism.

          • Lorehead

            None of the Republicans I know in real life are this accusatory about the motives of people who, in a free country, hold different political opinions from theirs. But then, by definition, those are all people who actually know at least one Democrat.

            At the end of the day, you and I have to share this country, work together, and cheer on the same national team at the Olympics. Attacking each other’s motives poisons the well. Without exaggeration, what you are doing is destroying America.

            One of the most conservative people I’ve had the pleasure of being friends with in Portland, where he came by his unpopular opinions honestly, is LDS, married a woman he met on Mission to Colombia, and has two charming daughters who are so dark-skinned, people mistake them for black.

            We actually haven’t talked politics this year, come to think of it, but I imagine his reaction when people say all Republicans must be secretly racist—or said people should be asking Mitt Romney about the now-repudiated racism of the church he belongs to, when his father was a hero of the civil-rights movement, one of the three people Martin Luther King Jr. endorsed for President in 1968, who walked out of the convention (figuratively) when his civil-rights plank was voted out of the party platform. It’s probably similar, but more justified, to mine when people accuse me of having ulterior motives for my own beliefs.

          • mockmook

            If you would stop defending Dems when they are obviously in the wrong, that would help.

          • Lorehead

            Whether they are “obviously” in the wrong is precisely what we disagree about. I observe that you brought up the Abu Ghraib scandal, completely out of the blue, and started defending George W. Bush against an accusation no one here had made. Even though he himself took responsibility for it and apologized.

            Look, I am done here. I tried to extend an olive branch. I tried scrupulously to list one Democratic example for each of my Republican ones and to make the same kind of joke about a Democrat. I tried to plead with you for civility and a presumption of good faith.

            You have worthwhile things to say about women’s soccer, the actual topic of this blog, but whenever politics comes up, you turn into a bigger troll than Steglitz and a much more unpleasant person to talk to. Please, as a personal request, don’t talk politics with me again until the election is over.

          • mockmook

            I didn’t talk politics with you. I brought up some facts regarding Odumbo, you then decided you had to jump to his defense,

          • Lorehead

            No, the only thing I said about President Obama was that I did not agree with all of the policies of his that you mentioned, either, but I did not see their relevance.

          • Steglitz49

            I only wish that the President had nominated another woman for the Supreme Court. It also would have made him unusual. I can see why he picked Merrick Garland. Politics is politics.

          • Lorehead

            I observed a number of years ago that, based on the actuarial tables, if Reagan had nominated two more women to the Court instead of justices Scalia and Kennedy, they would more than likely survive through the 2020 election, but because he nominated two men, at least one of them probably would not.

            However, all Republican appointees today are expected to be traditionalist Catholics morally opposed to the use of birth control. (The one exception, Harriet Myers, had her nomination spiked by her own party because they perceived her as an intellectual lightweight.) The life choices that forces a woman to make are incompatible with the kind of legal career that leads to an appointment to the Supreme Court.

          • Steglitz49

            Sandra O’Connor has at least one child, a son, as I remember. I don’t know about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was a close friend of the late Scalia and he of her.

          • Lorehead

            Yes. In Reagan’s time, the Supreme Court was not as polarized as it is now, and Republicans used to demand that every nominee get “an up-or-down vote.” Indeed, just a few years ago, a frequent talking-point about Robert Bork was that a president’s nominations should be accorded a certain deference, even when the other party controlled the Senate, and it was improper to block them on ideological grounds. That nomination ended up being filled by a moderate, Anthony Kennedy, in an election year, too.

            As you say, Scalia and Ginsberg never allowed their strong but respectful disagreements over law and politics to destroy their personal friendship. Ginsberg has also refused many requests from her own party to resign while Obama is still in office, because she does not want to contribute to the perception that seats on the Supreme Court are partisan spoils.

          • Steglitz49

            Nominating Bork was one of RR’s mistakes. I do not consider Kennedy as a moderate. He is a conservative.

            Sandra O’Connor was a moderate and understood big questions. Judge Alito is a greater soul than Kennedy.

          • Lorehead

            Kennedy is to the right of O’Connor, but to the left of Roberts and far to the left of Bork. He’s to the left of every other Republican nominee but Souter, and to the right of every Democratic nominee. He might well be remembered best for his landmark rulings on gay rights, although the jury is still out.

            If you want a nomination that the Left was really crazy to oppose, take a look at the man Reagan nominated after Bork but before Kennedy, Judge Ginsberg. The Senate Democrats rejected him because he’d once smoked pot.

          • Steglitz49

            Reagan got 2/3 right so one can’t judge him too harshly. My favorite remains Judge Alito partly because we used to drink “Judge Alito’s Blend” a coffee sold by Wards Coffee, a small independent retailer in NJ.

          • mockmook

            “He might well be remembered best for his landmark rulings on gay rights, although the jury is still out.”

            A farcical ruling where he ruled based on his emotions, not on the law. He may be remembered for it, but it won’t be because of the lawyerly rigor of his opinion.

          • Lorehead

            You have a point that words like “moderate” are meaningless out of context.

          • mockmook

            I’d say it is mostly a coincidence that recent GOP nominees have been Catholics.

          • Lorehead

            That’s a lot of coincidences over a long period of time, and the reasons Republicans refused to accept the one Evangelical nominee are very telling.

          • mockmook

            Did you read any of what Miers wrote? She was horribly unqualified.

          • Lorehead

            Exactly. When an Evangelical was nominated instead of someone from the same intellectual tradition as all the other Republican judges, she was dismissed as an intellectual lightweight.

          • mockmook

            Don’t you think Ted Cruz (Baptist) would breeze through a GOP Senate?

          • Lorehead

            Oh dear Lord, every other Republican in the Senate hates him! And says so, in public. John McCain called him a cuckoo bird.

          • mockmook

            That’s not an answer.

          • Lorehead

            In case I wasn’t sufficiently clear, no, I do not think this Senate would confirm Ted Cruz to the Supreme Court. There are some Protestant, Republican judges who could be, though. It’s not an absolute rule, just like Democrats don’t always nominate people from my own tribe, and yet the Supreme Court today consists of five Catholics, three Jews, with another Jewish nominee.

          • Steglitz49

            It is indeed hardly representative of US demographics.

            Had it been an ordinary nomination, Obama could have gone for a Chinese-American or Japanese-American of protestant background and he may well have picked a lady again.

            This nomination sets up the Supreme Court affirmation to do what the Berlin Airlift did for Harry Truman in 1948.

            The irony is, of course, that should Mrs Bill win she could nominate Obama to the Supreme Court!

          • Lorehead

            Consider, though, how you get nominated to the Supreme Court today: never say a single controversial word in your life, but have all the right people in your party vouch that you’d be a reliable vote. Is it surprising that we ended up with two cliques of people who all come from the same part of the country, the same schools, the same religion?

          • Steglitz49

            If you want to find a judge that is anti-abortion, they are an obvious tribe to select from.

          • Steglitz49

            As long as the Senate does its Consitituitional job and either confirms or rejects Merrick Garland, the US will be safe.

          • mockmook

            “Whether they are “obviously” in the wrong is precisely what we disagree about.”

            What was “right” about bombing a hospital?

          • Lorehead

            I would like to amend the last sentence of the post you are replying to. Since you tell me you don’t consider this talking politics with me, please stop doing whatever this is until after the election, too.

          • mockmook

            Please quit acting like a victim — if you don’t want push back, quit defending the indefensible (and try learning things like “Congress declares war” and other parts of the Constitution like “limited powers”).

          • Lorehead

            This is the third time you have claimed that I defended President Obama’s intervention in Libya, and the third time I have said that I did not agree with it either. However, as a matter of historical record, both parties are equally hypocritical about the War Powers Resolution. Every Republican president from Richard Nixon, over whose veto it was passed, to George W. Bush maintained that it is unconstitutional. Yet both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama violated it, and in both cases, their political opponents changed their tune.

          • mockmook

            You defended the bombing of the hospital in Afghanistan by saying other presidents made mistakes (I’m sure the people who died horribly painful deaths are heartened that it was unintentional). You’ve absolved Odumbo of any responsibility.

            That’s your idea of “bipartisanship” (along with calling women involved with Clinton “Bimbos”).

          • Lorehead

            I don’t even recognize what I said in your summary of it.

          • Lorehead

            But to put this another way. There is no zipless efficacy that will let us bomb the bad guys until they’re all dead or surrender, never get any of our own boys or girls killed, and never kill anyone else by mistake. Barack Obama was not able to do it. Neither could George W. Bush, or his father, or Bill Clinton, or Ronald Reagan, or Jimmy Carter, or Ford, Nixon, LBJ, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman or FDR. Neither can any man or woman running for President today. Because of the enemies he faced and the means he had to fight them with, FDR, who happened to be a Democrat, dropped bombs on the wrong people a lot more than any of the others, and history gives that a pass as a necessary evil.

            Yet I’m not a pacifist. Therefore, if I had been president for any four of the last seventy-five years, I would have the death of at least one innocent person on my conscience too.

          • mockmook

            Why is Odumbo bombing a country we aren’t at war with? Doesn’t that make it an “illegal war”? Doesn’t that mean he is committing war crimes?

          • Lorehead

            You’re deranged.

          • mockmook

            Here come the personal insults again.

            Well, you are a Dem hack, so it is understandable.

            Please tell me when war was declared.

          • Lorehead

            You’re very irate over a number of things I haven’t ever said, and many of your assumptions about what I must believe are wrong.

          • Craigaroo

            Of course, this isn’t the best conversation to be dragging out in a forum of women’s soccer fans but the quality of the comments, at least some of them, isn’t bad by internet standards. I wanted to acknowledge that. I can’t deny I take sides on some of these issues and, in general, I find Lorehead’s comments more persuasive and of sounder perspective. They’re very good comments . But in defense of both Lorehead and mockmook, it’s not a bad read, a quick refresher on some of the dividing lines in our political landscape this election year. (but mockmook’s referring to the President as Odumbo is over the line and beyond the pale)

          • Steglitz49

            The Republicans unconstitutional approach to the Supreme Court threatens to derail life in the US.

            Provided Obama has half the political skills of Harry Truman, Obama should be able to exploit this vile behavior to make the GOP implode at the polls.

          • Lorehead

            Thank you for the kind words. It’s a free country, and we’re all entitled to our own opinions.

          • Craigaroo

            very good comment. (see also my comment a little further down about the wisdom of dragging out this conversation and its redeeming features)

          • Lorehead

            I probably should not have. It was never going to be productive.

          • Lorehead

            Anyway, now that we’ve totally killed the mood for it, here’s my Clinton joke: the Clintons would call their team the Little Rock Eruption, and the front jersey sponsor would be a certain Mexican bakery.

          • mockmook

            So, are you saying that accusations that Bill Clinton is a rapist should be taken seriously? Hillary did say every accuser deserves to be believed (until she exempted Bill from that standard).

            Or, are you re-victimizing the accusers?

          • Lorehead

            I’m not motivated to go over the nuances with someone who’s just looking for a fight.

          • mockmook

            BTW, it is “hilarious” how you see nothing funny about bombing a hospital, but manage to find a “joke” regarding alleged rape victims.

          • Lorehead

            Oh for God’s sake, we know for a fact that his affair with Monica Lewinsky was consensual. You’re being completely irrational.

          • mockmook

            Katherine Willy? Juanita Broaddrick?

          • Lorehead

            First, I didn’t joke about either of them, only Lewinsky. Second, you know why Republicans didn’t use that against him at the time? Because Broaddrick swore out an affidavit that the accusation was false. If you had told me back then that, twenty years later, I would look back to the Clinton impeachment as halcyon days of fairness and decorum ….

          • mockmook

            Now you are lying, you never mentioned Lewinsky in the original “joke”.

          • Lorehead

            I edited it a few times. Reloading will show the final version. I assumed you were referring to the joke about unpaid interns, but I guess not. I certainly didn’t mention either of the others. “Bimbo eruption” originally was a reference to his consensual affair with Gennifer Flowers.

          • mockmook

            Which she recanted.

          • Lorehead

            All right, so the case that Bill Clinton is a rapist boils down to the accuser saying, she can’t prove it, but believe her now because she committed perjury?

            Are you just being snarky about those campus activists who say all rape allegations must be believed, no matter what? Because I certainly have never said that.

          • mockmook

            Again, you jump right to the defense of any Dem.

          • mockmook

            Great, you can call Bill’s “victims” Bimbos, but Trump is the boor.

  • Rdalford

    Dan, Thanks for the history lesson reminders about top international players who played in WUSA and WPS leagues. Good that the Henry signing is now fact (vs rumor) and hope that all the new players in Portland gel together as an effective team. Looking forward to watching an even more competitive NWSL season where almost every team has made changes (improvements?) – should be an enjoyable NWSL season.

    • Guest

      Except Sky Blue 🙁 They seem to have no midfield at all.

      But the additions bye very other team are very exciting

      • mockmook

        SBFC has the option of playing any of Rodriguez, O’Hara, Lytle, Killion, Cutshall, etc., in the midfield.

  • Tikitaka

    In regards to namesake, Marta is still the top signing in my mind. I’ve spoken with many soccer supporters that have no clue who Amandine is. If we’re talking about big signing in regards to effectiveness Kim Little’s name should be thrown into the mix. While her name prior to her NWSL debut was relative unknown outside of Europe she is hands down one of the top 5 footballers in the world.

    • Steglitz49

      Indeed. As far as name recognition is concerned, it is hard to beat Marta in WoSo. Only Alexandra the Great comes close.

      As for Kim Little, I am not persuaded.