Guest Georgio Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 I believe Lang is recovering from an injury, dunno about the others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ed Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Denis had a concussion, Lang was terrible in the last two games. Timko is a HUGE mystery. Can someone please explain to me how Matheson, Nault and Tancredi start and Timko is on the bench??? And I repeat my question on how Leblanc gets the nod over Swiatek from earlier in this thread. Prior to this game, we were 10-0 all-time vs Mexico with a GF/GA against ratio in the 10-1 range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca I usually enjoy it when I'm actually right about something (an all-too-rare occurence), but not this time. There simply isn't any excuse for this one. I would have never believed this. A few years ago, I recall the Mexican squad consisting of American girls who couldn't make it for the US team but had Mexican ancestry. How can you make to WC semis 6 mos ago and get eliminated from regional qualification shortly thereafter? teams such as mexico cannot improve that much in less than a year. So either canada was lucky at the WC or unlucky today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Dennis was injured for this match (and indeed since the first game). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Georgio Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Can someone who watched the game comment on whether Latham did anything all by her lonesome up front. And whether we would have been better off using Sinclair up there or if we had used a completely different formation going into the game (no lone striker) I'm glad I forgot to tape this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodway Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 In case anyone was wondering the refereeing in this game was excellant. The ref let the girls play (Don't think 1 card was shown the whole game). This of coarse plays into Canada's style of game So for perhaps the first time ever, a Canadian team (Men or Women) played a game in South America and have no legimate beef with the officiating *An atlas, good one! Save your money though, I of coarse was referring to Central America* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massimo Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Wasn't our formation a 4-4-2 almost a 4-3-1-2 formation at wwc? How do we go from that to a 4-5-1 formation? There must be something I missed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosehead Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 time for Kevan Pipe to go. He has been around too long. Someone from the top this time must go. If it is the coaching then get rid of whoever has put in the coaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Georgio Can someone who watched the game comment on whether Latham did anything all by her lonesome up front. And whether we would have been better off using Sinclair up there or if we had used a completely different formation going into the game (no lone striker) I'm glad I forgot to tape this game. Not having seen this game, I am going to make some big assumptions here. so bare with me. Two major characteristics of the long ball, direct and hoof and run approach that the canadian women use are 1) MF's are not required to be offensively creative so their usefullness is negated other than in defensive capacities and 2) Your strikers need to be your best players/athletes. Just looking at what we read hear in this thread, Latham was the lone striker. No Lang, No Sinclair. No victory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodway Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Georgio Can someone who watched the game comment on whether Latham did anything all by her lonesome up front. And whether we would have been better off using Sinclair up there or if we had used a completely different formation going into the game (no lone striker) I'm glad I forgot to tape this game. Latham was useless up front in the first half. And because Sinclair was pushed back to mid, she had to worry about defending and was compeletly invisable. As you suspected, yes this formation crashed and burned! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtlfan Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Major factors: Recovery time in between matches may seem like as factor as Mexico last played Sunday afternoon while Canada played Monday night. Any player will tell you that they do no have the same bounce in their body... If you compare this to the U20 4 games in 10 days vs 4 games in 7 days for Canada and 8 days for Mexico. Although Pellerud said he has more depth on his roster using three rookies (Jamani, Tancredi and Nault) is too much to blend in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Latham wasn't really alone. I though it was her and Jumani with Hooper withdrawn and Sinclair on the left. In the second half Sinclair was basically a third foward. We were awful. We played the second half going into a fierce wind, which should have encouraged balls played to feet. No such luck. We had a dozen bad corner kicks. Our goal was a nice ball played to Jumani's feet and she made a move, made some space and scored a lovely goal. The rest was scrappy and dire. The game was screaming for someone with a bit of class and Dominguez was that person. Her second goal was clinical. I didn't think our defence was that bad, Dominguez might just be the best striker in the world. I was infuriated by our personnel and tactics (we sub Morneau into the back to deal with Dominguez, smart move. We take out Neil and push Tancredi into the midfield?! Huh?!). I thought Lang should have started and gone for as long as she could. I think she's better than Nault and she deserved a start. And Sincy was totally lost wide on the left. Jumani failed to make back post runs and Latham's famed first touch was as we all remember it. Hooper really surprised me though. She looked like she lost a bit of her game and sadly, she might be reaching the end. I hope not, she's been the heart and soul of this team so long, but today she looked tentative at times. I thought Matheson was our best player for what it's worth. cheers, matthew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Can't believe it! The CSA has blown what should have been an easy road to the biggest event in Women's soccer. There goes the sponsorship money from corporations! Fire Pelerud now! Let's allow the ladies to play modern soccer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonovision Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 quote:Originally posted by ray Fire Pelerud now! Let's allow the ladies to play modern soccer. I hear Holger is available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ed Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Who else wants to chip in for an atlas for Mr. Rodway?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codegoat Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Brutal. Very frusterating, I was really hoping to watch some Canadian soccer in the Olympics. It is one of the few times that it will actually be televised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarrek Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 quote:Who else wants to chip in for an atlas for Mr. Rodway?? I was thinking of another book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 quote:Originally posted by codegoat Brutal. Very frusterating, I was really hoping to watch some Canadian soccer in the Olympics. It is one of the few times that it will actually be televised. Good point. From an exposure point of view this is disastrous. We could have had some Canadian soccer something other than a cable network for the first time since, I don't know, 1988? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Not that it is any excuse but did anyone notice how high the ball was bouncing on this pitch. It must have been a hard surface underneath the grass (which was missing in a lot of spots). Maybe clay. Not to get the artificial/grass debate going but field turf is definitely a better pitch than this poor natural field. This is not to take away from the poor play of our team who absolutely deserved to lose. Actually Pelerud should have noticed the pitch and changed to a short passing style because it is hard to receive the ball on long kicks when it is bouncing all over the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massimo Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Sorry, that doesn't fly with me. At this level, the fact that Mexico had a whole 30 hours more to rest doesn't mean that much. We talking about atheletes who are in top fitness, not overweight slobs! quote:Originally posted by mtlfan Major factors: Recovery time in between matches may seem like as factor as Mexico last played Sunday afternoon while Canada played Monday night. Any player will tell you that they do no have the same bounce in their body... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Grizzly Actually Pelerud should have noticed the pitch and changed to a short passing style You could probably change the word pitch to "the game of soccer for the past 50-odd years" and the statement would still be accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Concacaf Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 quote:Originally posted by sstackho Unfckingbelievable. I knew somebody would say that. [xx(] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Jarrek I was thinking of another book. Perhaps Rodway can return the favour by purchasing you both Etiquette</u> By Emily Post . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Free kick I would have never believed this. A few years ago, I recall the Mexican squad consisting of American girls who couldn't make it for the US team but had Mexican ancestry. How can you make to WC semis 6 mos ago and get eliminated from regional qualification shortly thereafter? teams such as mexico cannot improve that much in less than a year. So either canada was lucky at the WC or unlucky today. Well, I predicted that this could happen unfortunately, so I guess you can say that I have no trouble believing it. I may have gone over the top with my statement that the Girls U-11 Winnie the Pooh Fan Club of Mid-Western Penetanguishine could have beaten Panama 6-0, but I wasn't far off. Panama was an unbelievably bad team. Had we been firing on all cylinders we should have been able to crush that team by 15 or 16 goals. We weren't sharp & while the system we employ isn't very good, we weren't even playing that style to its top effectiveness. And yet Pellerud's comments in the Toronto Star the next day suggested it was a great win & that nothing was wrong. False sense of security & frankly, bad coaching. One of Helen Stoumbos most telling comments in her broadcasting career came during the Costa Rica match when she said "Canada seems to always have difficulty playing against the technically skilled teams" - It was an incredibly obvious comment that anyone could make, but I don't think the significance dawned on her or Dobson - what she was basically saying is that Canada struggles against teams that don't completely suck & can't even kick a ball. We struggle against the good teams, which means we aren't as good as the blissfully-blind Pellerud-can-do-no-wrong media liked to suggest. Hopefully the powers that be will realize that. Its a bit cruel to the girls that it comes down to one loss & they're out. I really feel for them, though the only consolation is that the vast majority are young enough to get additional chances at making the Olympics, whereas the men basically just had the one chance - everyone on that squad (even Matondo) will be too old next time round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ed Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Here's some etiquette for you Gordon. Mexico beat us with the long ball so piss off. To elaborate, it is quite alright to criticize the coach (and I am all for that) but just not cricket to criticize a forum participant for some bonehead post. Did I get that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.