Free kick Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Auger9 Julie Foudy On Canada: “. Over the course of the next four years, you’ll probably see them develop more tactically, nd I know I seem to have my doubts about that. first of all, the kind of things that they are lacking are those that are developed at a younger age. Physical strenght, athleticism, game preparation. etc are developed later. To say that Even will now focus on individual ball skills and tactical awareness is really putting the carriage before the horse or building the framework before having a solid foundation. Besides, pellerud was quoted in a Toronto star article weeks ago stating that this is the style that he favours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Free kick 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. "Hey, who'd have thought FIFA would get something right?" was the opening line. Its a cheap shot that diminishes his point. Its every bit as wrongheaded to go after the success because you don't like the style as it is to praise the results while ignoring the flaws. I've seen many articles criticized on this board because they were too pollyanna and ignored the warnings of many, yourself and Reza included, who said it would only go so far. I am criticising this one for being to excessive in its criticisms. The girls finished fourth. They made it to the semi's. While it is perfectly clear to anyone who watch that there is yet another step to be taken, don't feed us nonsense about the team being overrated. Don't tell me we're crap because the team we beat 4-0 had more possession. The Canadian team is open to criticism about the playing style: fair enough. But equally, every "skill" team that got run over is open to critism about their lack of physical strength. You need both. All four semi-finalists were physical teams. 3 had, to varying degrees, more skill than Canada. The most skilled team won. There is the message. Focus on that and leave out the Australia, Brazil and Japanese comparisons. Leave out the "well, we' re really not that good, so just ignore the results" BS. The results speak for themselves. In order to improve those results, we are going to have to rely more on ball skills and a more sophisitcated style, even it if is more similar to Sweden than the US (not advocating the Swedish style just saying it is more sophisticated than Canada's). But it is equally clear that Japan and nations of that ilk are going to have to add some robustness to their playing style. As for my comment about Italy, it was not to suggest that they play the same style as our women's team, rather they seem to play every game to win 1-0. I Don't like that style, and I don't think its an accident that they have only one World Cup in the last 65 years. But I sure don't say they are not worthy of being rated as one of the top nations in the World because of it, or diminsh their accomplishments. And if you disagree with my assessment, fair enough. I don't want to turn this into a debate about the Italian Men's team. I just want to make the point that for me to suggest that Italy was undeserving of their stature in the world because their teams win ugly (IMO) would be absurd. My issue with Jeremy Loone's article, as I've stated before, is the gratuitous shots at the team. It is uncalled for. He doesn't need them to make his point. I would say that we have yet to read a fair and balanced article about the women's team. So, in case it is not clear, I am not suggesting the style we play is adequate to win the World Cup. I am not advocating that we do not adopt a greater commitment to keeping possession. But physical play is, and always will be a part of soccer. Germany is physical, Sweden is physical and so is the United States. Teams that can't manage it (physical play) are no more worthy than teams that are less able in the skill level. That is the bottom line. And one Mr. Loone lost sight of IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarnCherry Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 I think it was a great article. I didn't read it, but it sure created a lot of funny whining responses which means it must have been good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastcoaster Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 In regards to this topic, this is taken from todays Toronto Star "Pellerud said that it is only a matter of time before Canada starts employing the same precise passing style and interplay associated with teams like Germany, Sweden, China and the United States. Pellerud has a point when he says that playing attractive soccer comes with experience. He says that the average age of his squad is 22, compared to 29 for Germany and China. ""This team is still very young, they are not as yet sophisticated,"" he said. ""This will come with confidence. I don't have any specific guidelines for the team when it comes to long balls or short ones or to keep the ball on the ground."" Here is the link to the complete article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJT Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Gordon As for my comment about Italy, it was not to suggest that they play the same style as our women's team, rather they seem to play every game to win 1-0. Tell that to the Welsh. (The style of play you attribute to Italy is actually seen in only a minority of their matches --- it just so happens that these are their biggest matches, seen by the most number of people, and thus it is this style that is remembered.) quote:I would say that we have yet to read a fair and balanced article about the women's team.You're probably right. But, as someone else posted, I think Jeremy's article took things to an extreme simply because almost all the other articles we've seen were taken to the opposite extreme. If he didn't take this approach then perhaps his article would not have been noticed by many people (certainly this thread wouldn't be so long). (I know from personal experience on this board that when I make the same point as someone else who is much more blunt in his choice of words, it is always that other person who gets a response. Sometimes being fair doesn't have a lasting effect on the reader.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Georgio Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 quote:You're probably right. But, as someone else posted, I think Jeremy's article took things to an extreme simply because almost all the other articles we've seen were taken to the opposite extreme. If he didn't take this approach then perhaps his article would not have been noticed by many people (certainly this thread wouldn't be so long). (I know from personal experience on this board that when I make the same point as someone else who is much more blunt in his choice of words, it is always that other person who gets a response. Sometimes being fair doesn't have a lasting effect on the reader.) RighteeeooOOO! Whether it was deliberate or not by Jeremy to, as I have already stated, take the negative argument to it's full extension he'll probably notice that this article has gotten more attention then any of his other articles that may have been fair and balanced (boring). Taking a blunt or extreme approach on issues is how so many jounalists, writers and anchormen have garnered respect to a point where they have become personalities that the public seek out. Don Cherry (whether you like him or not) is a good example of a TV personality who meets that criteria. K-Head (whether you like him or not)is a good example of a chat forum personality. The reporter will get more done with what he/she says. It's a "means to an end" approach if he wants to have an impact. Forgoe some supporters to gain a whole whack of cultlike supporters. Another chunk of people who don't respect your views often come back for more just because they are so annoyed by your views. I'm not saying that Jeremy is going to reach a much higher status, just that he, like many writers, has the luxury of creating a personality with the pen, and people can choose to start paying attention to what he has to say. He doesn't even have to believe everything that he is writing, which may not be seen as genuine to some, but maybe he'll actually have a positive impact, which is possibly most important to him. Who knows what his motives are. All I know is that I'll be paying attention to what he has to say next time, and I never was before. Georgio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ref Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 quote:Originally posted by eastcoaster In regards to this topic, this is taken from todays Toronto Star "Pellerud said that it is only a matter of time before Canada starts employing the same precise passing style and interplay associated with teams like Germany, Sweden, China and the United States. Pellerud has a point when he says that playing attractive soccer comes with experience. He says that the average age of his squad is 22, compared to 29 for Germany and China. ""This team is still very young, they are not as yet sophisticated,"" he said. ""This will come with confidence. I don't have any specific guidelines for the team when it comes to long balls or short ones or to keep the ball on the ground."" Here is the link to the complete article Thank you for posting this article, you made my day and so did Pellerud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auger9 Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 quote:Originally posted by The Ref Thank you for posting this article, you made my day and so did Pellerud. ditto! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 quote:Originally posted by DJT Tell that to the Welsh. (The style of play you attribute to Italy is actually seen in only a minority of their matches --- it just so happens that these are their biggest matches, seen by the most number of people, and thus it is this style that is remembered.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Georgio Taking a blunt or extreme approach on issues is how so many jounalists, writers and anchormen have garnered respect to a point where they have become personalities that the public seek out. Don Cherry (whether you like him or not) is a good example of a TV personality who meets that criteria. Don Cherry garners respect? uuhhh... okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattbin Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Free kick Yes !!!! that is the point that I was trying to make. It seems that people seem to pass their judgement on Italy's played based on maybe 2 games that they have seen in the past 3-4 years. Lets take the Ita-Fra game at Euro 2000. The game went to penalties and Italy lost. But the fact was that France was playing at home and with players at the back like Thuram and Lizarazu ( who are all over the pitch when France has posession ). This was the strenght of France in that they had players who were not married to their positions and very skilled at both ends. The Italians have these players also but good coaches have to know the opposition and how to counter their strenghts and the only logical approach to take was a counter attacking formation. And it almost worked. I think you might be confusing a couple of different matches here. Ita-Fra was won in extra time by France, Ita-Hol was the semifinal, won by Italy in PKs. And it was the semi that crystallized Italy's playing style in my mind, rightly or wrongly (though I had seen every Italy game to that point as well, and most of their games in the 98 WC). I agree with DJT that that was unfair--Italy had red cards to contend with, but really, their 8-1-0 formation was ugly, inexcusably ugly. And if Holland hadn't missed two PKs in regular time, it would have backfired. I know, would shoulda et cetera. Which brings us back to Canada. Can Italy win a game with their bunker defence? Sometimes, sure, but they sure got burned by France in 00 and by South Korea in 02, and they should have been burned by Holland. Can Canada win games with their current style? Sure, they beat China, full credit. But the consistent wins against the better teams and the improved rankings and stature in the game will come with better play all round (and obviously with the continued development of our talent--there's no doubt that Sinclair, Lang, and Timko will bring this team a long way no matter what else happens). And this is Loome's point. If we don't improve, we're going to have to hope that the other team misses the net most of the time (as Sweden did for the first 75 min). Any we'll be perennial quarter- or semi-finalists, but the best will always beat us out. My father has a saying: "Hope is not a management tool." Hope isn't a coaching tool, either. When we stop hoping for results and start playing better soccer, we won't be surprise finalists; we'll be the team that everyone--the US, Germany, Brazil, China, etc--is in mortal fear of. Finally, let me point out that this about the way forward, and not a criticism of what we've done so far. I was raving like a lunatic when we scored on China and when the final whistle went. I yelled so loudly when Lang scored on Sweden that my dogs started howling. I cracked a bottle of port I'd been saving for just such a celebration when we scored on the USA. But I know Canada can do even better, and my feeling is that Loome is trying to point to the answer. Allez les Rouges, M@ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 quote:Originally posted by mattbin I think you might be confusing a couple of different matches here. Ita-Fra was won in extra time by France, Ita-Hol was the semifinal, won by Italy in PKs. . Your right, I change my post to read that Italy lost on Golden goal rather than penalties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattbin Posted October 18, 2003 Share Posted October 18, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Free kick Your right, I change my post to read that Italy lost on Golden goal rather than penalties. No matter, really. I think both our points still stand... Allez les Rouges, M@ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.