Players, fans turn out to honor Kelly Smith

The Equalizer Staff February 19, 2017 29
Kelly Smith, with the blonde ponytail and hands on her back, gets mobbed by Arsenal teammates during her retirement match on Sunday (photo by Kieran Theivam)

Kelly Smith, with the blonde ponytail and hands on her back, gets mobbed by Arsenal teammates during her retirement match on Sunday (photo by Kieran Theivam)

One day after a wide-ranging interview in the Daily Mail included news that Kelly Smith had married her partner DeAnna with whom she is expecting her first child, the usually reserved Smith was the center of attention during a tribute match to her career, which she called to a halt last month. Arsenal prevailed 4-2 over the All-Star XI that included former England manager Hope Powell. But the match was more about celebrating Smith than worrying about the score.

Smith’s recent announcement that she was pregnant came with news that she would be unable to suit up for her own tribute match. But when the All-Star XI, who she was managing, won a penalty the crowd chanted for Smith to take it. She happily obliged and with little resistance from Sari van Veenedaal, converted in the final touch of her illustrious soccer career.

Another popular moment came when Kim Little put Arsenal on top and the entire team raced to the sideline to celebrate with Smith.

Smith’s career made her a star on two continents. She played for Seton Hall and was part of two professional leagues in the United States. In her native England she helped give rise to the national team which once struggled to qualify for major tournaments but finished 3rd at the most recent World Cup.

Former U.S. international Heather O’Reilly played in the match for Arsenal.

Stay tuned for more coverage from the match…

  • Ashley C

    She’s had a great career. I wish her well in the next chapter of her life and motherhood.

  • mockmook

    “her partner DeAnna with whom she is expecting her first child”

    I’m pretty sure biology doesn’t work that way — though, maybe someday soon in a test-tube.

    • Ashley C

      Surely there’s another site you can spend time being homophobic on?

      • mockmook

        Did I say anything that is untrue?

        Reality is not “homophobic”

    • Steglitz49

      Hedvig Lindahl and Lisa Dahlkvist of the SwedishWNT have done it as has Anja Pärson and Dick Cheney’s daughter Mary.

      • Tom F

        glad to see you alive & kickin, since our Prez(Trump) said there was a H’U;G;E terrorist attack in Sweden

    • Ethan

      She’s expecting her first child, and she’s with DeAnna. There’s nothing wrong with that phrasing.

    • FawcettFan14

      Have some respect.

      • mockmook

        The writers were sloppy — tell it to them.

        • guest

          Why does the phraseology matter to you? Anyone with a brain who studied dreaded science knows that the child doesn’t have both of their DNA (although we are getting there as far as being able to make that happen). Is it threatening to you as a white man that we are openly talking about women having children together? Way to nitpick based on something silly just to make a broader point. Good thing Donald is giving white men their safe spaces back.

          • mockmook

            Why does it matter to you that it matters to me?

          • guest

            you really are incapable of having an intelligent discussion. just nonsensical replies and whataboutisms. I responded directly to something that you said.

          • mockmook

            You’ve demonstrated your bigotry, misrepresentation, and stereotyping. That doesn’t give me a warm fuzzy that you are interested in an “intelligent discussion”.

          • guest

            LOL i have no issue with white straight men. However, it’s pretty clear they can love and reproduce with who they want to without some random internet commentator saying that there is “solidarity with a community” involved with making an objective statement about them having a kid. You instigated the attack by making a condescending remark about two women having a child, so clearly YOU care about what lesbians are doing with their lives. I merely responded to YOUR remark.

    • guest

      I think he means men are still necessary for reproduction, much to lesbians’ displeasure.

      • Ethan

        Nothing in the wording says that the child is biologically related to both of them. What the wording does say is that the child will be raised by both of them. Therefore, mockmook’s comment is ridiculous regardless of what he meant.

        • mockmook

          Oh come on — the implication is that it is “their” child.

          • DNG

            The word ‘their’ only implies possession, not whether or not a child is the biological offspring of both parents. I don’t see anything wrong with the phrasing either as, presumably, the Child’s guardians will be Kelly Smith and her partner.

          • mockmook

            I put “their” in quotes to distinguish it from ‘their’ (meaning co-parents).

            Regardless, the relevant phrase is “with whom she is expecting her first child”

            Why not just say “Smith is expecting her first child. She is married to DeAnna.”? As far as we know, Smith would/could be having this child regardless of what DeAnna wants.

          • DNG

            Okay, fair enough. I still don’t really have an issue with it but you make a good point.

          • Ethan

            If DeAnna was male, Smith would/could still be having her child regardless of what DeAnna wants. I doubt you would have brought up the phrasing though if DeAnna was a man. Unlike DNG, I don’t think you make a good point in any way.

          • mockmook

            “I doubt you would have brought up the phrasing though if DeAnna was a man.”

            Of course I wouldn’t (absent other evidence).

            One would assume the child was “with” her husband, the man (his sperm, her egg).

            That was the whole point of my original comment.

            That situation is not analogous to Smith becoming pregnant (apparently with no biological involvement by DeAnna).

            If DeAnna donated the egg for Smith’s pregnancy, then I’m perfectly happy with the “with”.

          • Ethan

            I made the quoted comment in response to your last sentence that you typed in support of your argument. My point was that your point in that last sentence would still be applicable if DeAnna was a man, making your point there irrelevant.

            The wording is “her child” with reference to Smith. Nothing was said about the child being biologically DeAnna’s. In fact, the use of “her first child” instead of “their first child” may have been intentional. Honestly, I don’t see a point to your original comment. Agree to disagree.

            Edit: It’s clear that the “with” is saying that Smith and DeAnna are expecting the child together. The “with” has nothing to do with biology.

          • mockmook

            “expecting the child together”

            And, again, this makes my point.

            As far as we know, this child would/could have been conceived regardless of DeAnna’a wishes. Typically, with a male, there HAS TO BE some “consent” of the husband in order to conceive a baby.

          • The child could just as easily carry DeAnna’s DNA and not Smith’s. We don’t know the particulars. It’s still “their” child and there is nothing misleading or untrue about how the sentence was written.

          • Ethan

            I forgot about that possibility.

      • Steglitz49

        It is worse for the men.

        The ladies can always get some bloke to sire them a child by hook or by crook but the guy gets nothing without a lass so if he can’t persuade a woman, no issue.