Massive Attack Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 The article's author, was posting on this site a few months ago. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Our women's team just isn't as good as it thinks http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Soccer/WorldCup/Women/2003/10/13/225089.html By JEREMY LOOME -- EDMONTON SUN Hey, who'd have thought FIFA would get something right? The international soccer ranking system devised by FIFA has always relied on arbitrary judgments about teams' relative strengths and has never been good to Canada. In the same year the national men trounced 42-ranked Switzerland 3-1, we still managed to lose a place in the standings, to 79th. How refreshing to see, then, that the women's game is being handled a little more realistically. Heading into the Women's World Cup in the U.S., Canada was pegged at 12th in the world. That led to protests at our being ranked behind teams we can beat, notably Brazil. But after watching Canada play, it seems apt. Good results and emerging talents like Christine Sinclair, Brittany Timko and Kara Lang have pushed the women's soccer team into unprecedented popularity. There's one problem: we're not as good as we think. Charmaine Hooper went off the dial describing the arrogance of the U.S. women and suggested Canadians weren't getting enough recognition. Let it be stated that she is just plain wrong. Yes, Hooper deserves to be recognized as one of the game's best. But then, she always has been. If she hasn't become famous as a result, that can hardly be blamed on the U.S. hype machine. CHASTAIN'S FAME Instead, it lies with the relative lack of success of the team surrounding her. Brandi Chastain didn't become famous for being a good player; she became famous for whipping off her shirt after the U.S. won the 1999 World Cup. Without the team performing, she'd still be anonymous. Heck, how many Canadian fans can name three U.S. players aside from Chastain and Mia Hamm? Up until now, Canada hadn't won anything. Why would anyone know who these women are? Their achievements this time around have, undoubtedly, been magnificent. But Canada's size, strength and enthusiasm hide and sometimes overshadow glaring, obvious problems: our interplay is absolutely horrible and we're tactically inept. We don't deserve to bully our way into the top 10. Even Australia, whom Canada absolutely creamed in a warm-up for the tournament, passed circles around Canada. The Japanese, whom we beat, passed circles around Canada. China controlled the ball for about 65% of the game, and we beat them. But guts, strength and sheer athleticism, while important, aren't a solid future on which to build a team. Evan Pellerud is surely a brilliant motivator, but it's worth noting that the Norwegian team he coached to the World Cup nearly a decade ago has also been surpassed by teams that control the ball and is now second in Scandinavia to World Cup finalists Sweden. DUMP IT, CHASE IT Dump-and-chase soccer will not keep us competitive in the long run. It's been one of the consistent problems with the men's team. Everyone decries our lack of scoring without noting that no matter whom we put up front, they get no midfield service. That's already particularly true of the women's team. In game after game, every time a midfielder or a defensive player got a hold of the ball, they played route-one football: fire it up the field and hope one of our bigger, stronger forwards could get control. But good defence kills that style. Without buildup moving your midfielders into support, forwards are left with no one to dish the ball to once double-teamed. With three forwards against four defenders, it was a problem in every game. Canada could have a bright future in soccer. We have the talent. New pro teams are cropping up all over. National team games, at least in Edmonton, regularly draw 25,000 plus for either gender. Now we need to concentrate on playing some clever football, before it all goes to waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattbin Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 I've always liked Jeremy's writing, and it's hard to refute his points here--especially since he's so obviously positive about the whole thing. Great article as usual, Jeremy. Allez les Rouges, M@ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJT Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Awesome article, Jeremy, awesome! I stopped reading the multitude of WWC articles by our media over the past few weeks because they were just so rah-rah and superficial and, consequently, uninteresting. But this article restores my hope that we have some writers that are actually thinking (not that I'm surprised by Jeremy, given what we've seen from him on our boards). I'd also point out that we were only 3-3 in the WWC. Two wins were against teams we should be expected to beat (and still looked bad doing so overall), and the third one, well, if we played China that way 10 times we'd lose the other 9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 quote:Originally posted by DJT I'd also point out that we were only 3-3 in the WWC. On the other hand, we only lost to the top 3 teams. The article makes some good points. On the other hand, 3/4s of a pretty darn good defensive line out with injuries and most of the replacements hobbled too make a 4th place finish pretty impressive. You win your way into the top 10. And the Canadian Ladies did that. It is equally true that you don't deserve to be in the top 10 if you are pansy assed and incapable of defending or keeping net. So while I expect that Canada does have to grow its tactics, there are a few "skillful" nations that have to grow some balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ref Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack The article's author, was posting on this site a few months ago. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Our women's team just isn't as good as it thinks http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Soccer/WorldCup/Women/2003/10/13/225089.html By JEREMY LOOME -- EDMONTON SUN I read with interest your article but I found it to be unkind and insulting to our Women National Team. Maybe you can enlighten me as to your playing experience and personal assessment of the women abilities in the team that qualify you to write such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redhat Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I think the WWC team should be lauded for reaching their goals and surpassing some expectations. To say they're not that good and yet reach 4th place is a bit harsh and unfair. What the article is arguing about is a question of style being employed. I'm sure possession ball is really pretty, and pretty plays are what excites a soccer enthusiast, but in tournament like that what attracts people eventually is the win. Sportsnet would not broadcast live if play that way and lose, whether or not it was a pretty game. But the public likes grit and determination, and would highlight Kara Lang's shots and Timko's physical play. The article is fair in suggesting some improvement is necessary to advance. I'd say that was the plan in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex M Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that if you beat teams that are ranked higher than you, you should move up in the rankings..That's how it works right? Or are there style points because its women playing? Anyhow, the point is, Canada 3 Japan 1, Canada 1 China 0, Canada 36 Australia 0 (Approx)..We beat these teams and it shouldn't matter how we did it. Work on what we've got and if this can be successful now, why can't it be successful in the future? Because people say so? Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattbin Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 I can't speak for Jeremy, of course, but I think that you guys are taking his comments too negatively... though on re-reading the piece I'm surprised I didn't take them more negatively myself. Anyhow, I think his point is that our results will be inconsistent and our rankings will continue to be lower than we deserve unless we improve as a team--and that with the talent and physical presence we possess, there remains huge potential. Allez les Rouges, M@ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soccer Hack Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 quote:I read with interest your article but I found it to be unkind and insulting to our Women National Team. Maybe you can enlighten me as to your playing experience and personal assessment of the women abilities in the team that qualify you to write such things It's called an OPINION, just like you are entitled to wave your flag in support of the WWC team, he's entitled to point out some very valid points. I agree with Jeremy's points, we've got a long way to go before we can run our mouths about how great we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auger9 Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Soccer Hack It's called an OPINION, just like you are entitled to wave your flag in support of the WWC team, he's entitled to point out some very valid points. I agree with Jeremy's points, we've got a long way to go before we can run our mouths about how great we are. It's also called pride...if we want to rant and rave that we beat China, then we will! There's been planty of articles that are supporting the team, so why are ppl interested in the one that's not?! obviously not very big fans of canadian soccer.... rankings will be out on the 24th i believe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ed Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 quote:Originally posted by The Ref I read with interest your article but I found it to be unkind and insulting to our Women National Team. Maybe you can enlighten me as to your playing experience and personal assessment of the women abilities in the team that qualify you to write such things. I assume you'll be putting that same question to Terry Jones, another Edmonton journalist who has written plenty of articles on our womens' team. Otherwise, you are saying it is perfectly acceptable for someone who has not played and/or does not understand the game to praise our women's team. But it is unacceptable f they step over the line, and actually offer some criticism. Let's leave that to the Yank journalists covering the WWC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reza Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Good article by Jeremy in the sense that I also do not understand Hooper's frustrations. As someone who has always been critical of the style, I also agree. The Americans have a good team now and had an even better team in 1999. They play a complete football and don't just rely on physical soccer to impose themselves on the opposition. Now, if you turn the table around and if Canada had the US team and the Americans had the Canadian team, it would have been the same. It would have taken some time to appreciate the Yanks and their style. It's harder to get excited about a game that is going to be packed with little fouls and physical play than a game that is going to be packed with beautiful passes and moves, if you are looking from either an objective point of view or an unbiased outsider point of view. As for other teams being pansy-assed, I am not sure. China just did not have the size against Canada and didn't have anyone up front. But almost anyone who had some size and some cohesion ended up beating Canada (Germany, USA, Sweden). And to that end, until Canada accomplishes that, respect will be due. In regards to why this article gets attention, is just because it's different. Every article on the WWC is quite positive but there were also negatives that must be looked at. If you fail to look at the negatives, you get what you got with the men's team in 2000 when everyone went mad after the Gold Cup without questioning the many negatives of that Gold Cup. I think it's important to appreciate something, but to also expect better, way better. Calling a spade, is better than just empty lip services that some writers tend to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Reza In regards to why this article gets attention, is just because it's different. Every article on the WWC is quite positive but there were also negatives that must be looked at. If you fail to look at the negatives, you get what you got with the men's team in 2000 when everyone went mad after the Gold Cup without questioning the many negatives of that Gold Cup. I think it's important to appreciate something, but to also expect better, way better. Calling a spade, is better than just empty lip services that some writers tend to do. Yeah, I agree! ITs a good article. People point out weaknesses on champions, so what's so wrong about making one or two small critisisms on a team that lost 3 games!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ref Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------ I assume you'll be putting that same question to Terry Jones, another Edmonton journalist who has written plenty of articles on our womens' team. Otherwise, you are saying it is perfectly acceptable for someone who has not played and/or does not understand the game to praise our women's team. But it is unacceptable f they step over the line, and actually offer some criticism. Let's leave that to the Yank journalists covering the WWC. That is what I am saying when the criticism is such as done in the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Georgio Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 To question someones credentials is not addressing the problem. His observations are just that. Some Hockey and Soccer analysts with no significant playing or coaching experience have become analysts because of studious observations/evaluations and the ability to convey these thought to the viewer, largely in part from growing up around the game. It's the message Jeremy is trying to get accross that matters. People who have coached a particular style their whole adult lives (ie. Old Scottish Long ball) and have every attainable credential in the Football world (coaching levels, pro experience) are no more qualified to speak of these matters via the press then a simple observer. It basically questions everyones credentials that agrees with Jeremy. I agree with Jeremy on many points in the article and my credentials are not too bad depending on who is asking the question. What credentials will appease you? Had someone who was once a CSA coach written this artical, which has sentiments widely agreed apon, would you still find the artical insulting or would it then be thought provoking? Although the article is negative and doesn't take into account the substantial injuries Canada's WNT had, it does address what a great portion of viewers have noticed, unlike every other article since the WWC. I'd also like to add that this article undervalues our success to some extent, but if that is what it takes for the powers that be to rethink even for a moment the course that we seem to be on, then I applaude Jeremy. Because that style of game, if maintained, will see us only to the Quarters in 2007 and no further then the first round in 2010. Jeremy has taken one side of the argument to it's full extension with this article. Every article has been super positive, this negative one is refreshing and sets a good balance. I'm just glad these thoughts have been expressed in mainstream media, not just in the chat forums that CSA reps are unlikely to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chet Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 quote:Originally posted by mattbin Anyhow, I think his point is that our results will be inconsistent and our rankings will continue to be lower than we deserve unless we improve as a team. WTF? That is exactly the opposite of what he's saying! He says explicitly in the first four paragraphs: Canada is ranked 12th and that is where they deserve to be ranked. Loome makes some valid arguments, but his lead -- which by journalistic convention would be the entire point of the article -- is patently ridiculous. I swear, many of you snobs would rather watch a game of keep-away than a game of soccer. The game is decided by goals. Whether you score them by sheer grit and determination or by passing the ball around until everyone in the stadium falls asleep doesn't matter. This isn't figure skating where you're awarded points for artistic interpretation. God doesn't come down and hand you the victory just because the Technical Study Group declared your skills to be superior. You have to work for it. I'm sick and tired of seeing the Canadian team being denigrated by soccer elitists because "all they do is outwork their opponents." Canada earned its fourth place finish. And anyone who thinks it didn't is wishing for a different sport. <center>If you pass and pass and pass, we'll knock you on your ass. We're Canada! If it's ugly being gritty, if blood and sweat aren't pretty Beg the referee for pity, ask FIFA for a committee But the reds will never quit because We're Canada!</center> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Reza As for other teams being pansy-assed, I am not sure. China just did not have the size against Canada and didn't have anyone up front. But almost anyone who had some size and some cohesion ended up beating Canada (Germany, USA, Sweden). And to that end, until Canada accomplishes that, respect will be due. That's quite true, and exactly to the point I was making in that, while there is considerable room for Canada to improve its game, lets not diminsh the accomplishment because it wasn't pretty enough. Football skills are a plentiful mix and not all of them are pretty: If the Japanese had a keeper, and perhaps a little more grit, and could maybe produce a payer over 5'2 who had skills perhaps they might have beaten us. If the Chinese were a little more skillful with their head, maybe they would have scored that tying goal instead of muffing the chance. Sweden, Germany and the US could match the physical play of Canada, and consequently could use their advantage in skills and tactics to win: But soccer is a sport, and that means physical attributes are part of the mix. The Chinese have been a high level nation in women's soccer since day one. The notion that our style of play will cease to be effective "down the road" does not pan out when watching the style beat the Chinese. Now it should be obvious to everyone that physical football will not beat nations who are more skilled and nearly as physical. Of course, none of Germany, Sweden or the US were missing 3 starters, starting partially fit (Neil, Nonen and Morneau) players or working with a bench that was, well, short, also due to injuries. I don't disagree with the basic message that there is another level that Canada has to progress if they want to win the WWC. But I would also like to point out that there is a purpose to football: To score more goals than the other team. This includes playing defence, tending ones goal and using ones head. Focusing on the visually attractive skills is easy to do, but there is a reason that Brazil dresses Daniela as Centre back, or why there are few successful 5'6 centre backs in the men's game. Physical play will always be part of the game, and teams that don't have it are no more deserving of top 10 rankings simply becasue they make pretty passes. Oh yeah, China had Sun Wen up front. She is a pretty good football player. So by all means, point out the deficiencies in Canada's game, but don't trot out the names of the vanquished and say they' re more deserving becasue they pass the ball while loosing to us. We thumped Australia, and the pair of 2-1's flattered Brazil. Lets live with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJT Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Georgio I'd also like to add that this article undervalues our success to some extent, but if that is what it takes for the powers that be to rethink even for a moment the course that we seem to be on, then I applaude Jeremy. Because that style of game, if maintained, will see us only to the Quarters in 2007 and no further then the first round in 2010. Jeremy has taken one side of the argument to it's full extension with this article. Every article has been super positive, this negative one is refreshing and sets a good balance. I'm just glad these thoughts have been expressed in mainstream media, not just in the chat forums that CSA reps are unlikely to see. Yes, that's how I feel. There has been plenty of criticism on our forums, but hardly anything in the mainstream media, so it was very nice to see someone in the latter group take a different point of view. To think that the women are above this kind of criticism is just ridiculous. And while some people view this criticism as "insulting" or "elitist", I view it as taking the women's game more seriously and showing it more respect. quote:Originally posted by Chet I swear, many of you snobs would rather watch a game of keep-away than a game of soccer. The game is decided by goals. Whether you score them by sheer grit and determination or by passing the ball around until everyone in the stadium falls asleep doesn't matter. This isn't figure skating where you're awarded points for artistic interpretation. God doesn't come down and hand you the victory just because the Technical Study Group declared your skills to be superior. You have to work for it. I'm sick and tired of seeing the Canadian team being denigrated by soccer elitists because "all they do is outwork their opponents." You're missing the point. We don't want the team to play "pretty" soccer just for the sake of playing "pretty" soccer. Rather, we think that "prettier" soccer will be more successful for us in the long run. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 First off I am pleased Jeremy used language familiar to soccer fans to criticize some aspects of our play and tactical sense. Any team that scores first and can't hold on for more than a few minutes, as happened with us in two key games, is lacking some sense of how to adjust to having the lead. The Sweden game is the key, as here is where pure tactical hard-headed strategical sense would have possibly taken us to the final. All we needed was ball control, some more tactical fouling, and perhaps some formation adjustments and subs after Kara's goal. But I don't agree that we deserve to be 12th. We are definitely top 8 now, and rankings should reflect two wins over Brazil, two over Mexico, one over the Aussies. Our only three losses in the last 15 games or so are vs the three top teams at the WC, as pointed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew W Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 Only one thing should matter in determining FIFA rankings: scoreboard. That's it. Wins, losses, draws. Beyond that, the rest is window dressing best suited for forums like this (which is why I take part ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 quote:Originally posted by The Ref I read with interest your article but I found it to be unkind and insulting to our Women National Team. Maybe you can enlighten me as to your playing experience and personal assessment of the women abilities in the team that qualify you to write such things. Playing experience has nothing to do with. Jeremy is not writting the article for those with playing experience but rather for all fans of sport and soccer. IMO, he hit the mark with this piece and his view point is shared by a great majority of people on this board and, as a result, the CSA should take note. Chris Young, in his WWC preview, noted that the canadian womens play a style that the " purist loath". So Jeremy is not alone and is reflecting the sentiments of many. People don't become fans of soccer because of watching teams play the way Canada did at the WWC. Ultimately, it will come down to the fans. There are plenty of bandwagon fans who are not really soccer fans who will go out to watch that stuff but most people who like the game first and formost won't. Last year when the women played a friendly at Centennial, I purposely chose not to attend despite the fact that many Voyageurs/Ultras purchased tickets. I chose not to because I don't find it entertaining to watch that brand of soccer. Thats why Jeremy's article hit the mark with me. Results are great but are only a short term outcome. Besides, if your only interested in results, There are other sports one can watch where canada dominates where you will be satisfied. If you wish to defend this style on merit, then you might want to ask yourself which national mens side or club play like this? Answer: You won't find any. The reason? because its not successfull. Also, Just because we express our displeasure with this simplistic and naive style of play, it doesn't mean that we are proponents of "Jugo Bonito". Thats not what we are saying!!! sweden also play a direct style, but I didn't find them unpleasant and frustrating to watch. the canadian just take it too much to the extreme. To the point where, soccer was not meant to be played that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 My problem with this article is probably the same as the problems others have with the overly rosey assessments. It only partially hits the mark. I have a problem with sentences like: "How refreshing to see, then, that the women's game is being handled a little more realistically. Heading into the Women's World Cup in the U.S., Canada was pegged at 12th in the world. That led to protests at our being ranked behind teams we can beat, notably Brazil. But after watching Canada play, it seems apt." and "There's one problem: we're not as good as we think" and "We don't deserve to bully our way into the top 10." All three statements are factually incorrect although the second can be argued subjectively. Now had the article been written solely from the standpoint of "we have gona as far as we can with this style" without gratitous shots at the results, you wouldn't see me contributing tot his debate. Here's the point: we finished 4th. Which suggests that a) the rankings were not "apt" we are as good as we think as most comentators were saying that we were probably top 6 and c) we are winning our way into the top ten and there is a lot more than bullying going on here. For me, the good points contained in the article - and they are there, only more articulately presented by Reza - are overshadowed by the nonesence that is getting spoouted. We finshed 4th. Every team that beat us earned a medal. I don't like the style Italy adopts (not meaning to open any cans of worms here, its just an example ), but I don't begrudge them their success on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Gordon "There's one problem: we're not as good as we think" But I happen to believe in this statement. If we fail to recognize this fact then we could be in trouble in future WWC. AS I said in one of my posts in the other board yesterday, there is a long precedent in the Mens WC of teams that have finished fourth and never really lived up to those expectations and results in international play in future events. In that way, fourth can be omenous. The CSA would be better off thinking as if they got eliminated in ¼ finals and looking at what needs to be done to contend for the big trophy. IMO, Just because you reached the semis, doesn't mean that your the fourth best team. and quote:Originally posted by Gordon "We don't deserve to bully our way into the top 10." All three statements are factually incorrect although the second can be argued subjectively. Now had the article been written solely from the standpoint of "we have gona as far as we can with this style" without gratitous shots at the results, you wouldn't see me contributing tot his debate. Here's the point: we finished 4th. Which suggests that a) the rankings were not "apt" we are as good as we think as most comentators were saying that we were probably top 6 and c) we are winning our way into the top ten and there is a lot more than bullying going on here. I don't think that the intent was to defend the ranking or even the results although it seems that way. I think that the intent was to emphasize a point. In each match played that canada won, I feel that they were full marks for win, but its hard to believe that we are fourth best in the world when there is so little variety and so much simplicity to what we do in a game that is much more complex. Surely you can't say that about Italy's mens teams in int'l play. With Italy, coaching may dictate that they may play certain tactics against certain team, but no way can one suggest that they ( the players and the teams) are not more diverse than that. Besides, I have never seen Italy play Kick and run soccer. Yes, at times and when needed, they will play many men behind the ball or take on rigid defensive schemes. But when they gain possession, they will make you win it back from them. They won't just hoof back to the opposition to head away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Andrew W Only one thing should matter in determining FIFA rankings: scoreboard. Actually, what really </u>matters is that the FIFA rankings don't matter! quote:Originally posted by Free kick People don't become fans of soccer because of watching teams play the way Canada did at the WWC. I chose not to because I don't find it entertaining to watch that brand of soccer. Thats why Jeremy's article hit the mark with me. I agree! Chipmunk soccer (aka dump 'n chase soccer) - which basically involves running back and forth on a field hoping to luckily stumble upon a round object - is brutal to watch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auger9 Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 Julie Foudy On Canada: “They remind me a lot about how we used to look as a team: very athletic, strong, and less technical then the group we have. But that’s not the style Evan was playing with them. He plays a direct style and tries to rely on speed. Over the course of the next four years, you’ll probably see them develop more tactically, nd I know their young team is very good. I have a lot of respect for them. They always come out to battle." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.