Jump to content

Oct 9 WCQ: Honduras v Canada POST-match thread [R]


DJT

Recommended Posts

quote:Originally posted by Free kick

Seems that way to me as well. But I thought later about the position of the keeper and was wondering if the keeper had moved out thus putting DeRosario in an offside position. But since I don't have access to the replay and didn't tape it, I would like to re-watch that play again. Also, the camera focused in on DeRosario immediately after the the play and he very barely protested the call. Completely unlike the reaction we saw from our players after those two plays in the final five minutes in Edmonton.

Dero was behind the ball when it was played across to him by Devos and therefore could not have been offside. I never saw a flag and presumed (irrespective of Dobson) that the call was against DeVos for going over the back. Replay shows that didn't happen though. We got screwed - though I don't think it was malicious. Incompentent and unforutnately predicatble yes; malicious no.

quote:Oddly, the officiating did not look conspiratorial to me in this game that is why I was wondering why the goal was called back. It did not look like a sham ( i.e.: Edmonton) given that there were a couple of attacking plays from the Hondurans that were whistled back earlier in the game, that replays showed were not offside.

Agreed. On the whole the officials had an excellent game. Blew the biggest call though.

Mike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Just finished watching the game for the second time. Here are my thoughts:

The offside: ref's assistant did not have his flag up and ran with the play. Judging from where the goalie took the ensuing free kick, the ref must have guessed that De Rosario "pulled a Van Nistleroy" and gained an advantage from being in an offside position off the original Simpson cross to De Vos. Looking at the replay again he was not offside in the first place, so I think Stott got it wrong. Too bad, because it was a well officiated match.

Grande: my man of the match. Scrappy, combatitive, great long passes down the flanks . . . well done! Played his heart out!

Imhoff: too many people have ragged on him, but I thought he was great today. He tracked back really well on several occasions, played within his capabilties, and provided thankless yeomen service.

De Vos: where would we be without this guy back there? Never put a foot wrong defensively, leads by example, organizes the side (tell me why he isn't the captain?) . . . and when his playing days are over, a future MNT coach?

Jazic: got picked on like a pimply fat kid in junior high in the first half. Always seemed to be at full stretch, having to make desperate challenges resulting in corners. Happy to say he only backpassed to Onstad once during this match (probably because De Vos was beside him, giving better guidance). Got beaten badly in the first half on a wall pass, and was fortunate the Honduran wasted the chance.

Radz: mixed opinions on the board today. I think he did well because Hume seemed invisible as his partner. He generated some offensive forays, but just seemed a little off. For instance, late in the first half De Rosario (after giving the ball away in midfield, resulting in a Honduran scoring opportunity) got the ball back and hit a superb 60 yard special down the left wing; Radz got behind the defender but just couldn't kill the ball on the short hop in stride. Granted a tough play, but I have seen him do it before. He also poorly mis-hit a volley on a similar long ball down the right flank by Grande. I think we would get more out of him if we played him with a target man like Occean (or De Rosario in that role).

Hutchison: played really well, earned his goal, yet still looks like a midfielder playing fullback at times, but his defensive positional play will only improve.

Hume: Set play service was poor, but made a nice run to set up a shot. Never provided enough support during the game. Rightly subbed.

Onstad: steady, no complaints, nothing else to say.

De Rosario: a one trick pony on the left flank. After two poor left footed crosses in the first half, in the second half he chose to cut inside to his right foot and was duly stuffed on both occasions. On one it was particularly frustrating because Jazic had made a fine interception, had moved the ball upfield and was running up for the overlap, but De Rosario lost the ball. I wish he was playing more centrally as the target man partner for Radz. Right now, he hustles defensively but he is trying too hard to make things happen offensively, and nothing is going right. Did hit a fantastic pass to Radz and ran well on to a DeGuzman pass, but overall has not been convincing. Has he jumped the shark?

De Guzman: an enigma, wrapped up in a riddle, covered in a shroud. Played his best when he immediately ran at opponents in one on one situations. Played poorly when he dilly-dallied on the ball, though some may argue he did that due to lack of support. Still gives it away too much, either through poor passing or poor shielding. Yet I think he's trying to make things happen on the flank, and I appreciate his efforts. He's definitely not the finished article, but with his continued development we should see a special player in the future.

Watson: plays better when De Vos is beside him. Not spectacular, but that near own goal was scary, and then that defensive header . . . well, maybe he should be the target man strike partner for Radz, because that header was a perfectly placed knockdown, right on the penalty spot. I'm too hard on him because, under pressure, any defender could have done that. Tough break, Mark.

Overall, I was really proud of the team. Under any other circumstances, that was a great result, but we needed a win today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just finished watching the game for the second time. Here are my thoughts:

The offside: ref's assistant did not have his flag up and ran with the play. Judging from where the goalie took the ensuing free kick, the ref must have guessed that De Rosario "pulled a Van Nistleroy" and gained an advantage from being in an offside position off the original Simpson cross to De Vos. Looking at the replay again he was not offside in the first place, so I think Stott got it wrong. Too bad, because it was a well officiated match.

Grande: my man of the match. Scrappy, combatitive, great long passes down the flanks . . . well done! Played his heart out!

Imhoff: too many people have ragged on him, but I thought he was great today. He tracked back really well on several occasions, played within his capabilties, and provided thankless yeomen service.

De Vos: where would we be without this guy back there? Never put a foot wrong defensively, leads by example, organizes the side (tell me why he isn't the captain?) . . . and when his playing days are over, a future MNT coach?

Jazic: got picked on like a pimply fat kid in junior high in the first half. Always seemed to be at full stretch, having to make desperate challenges resulting in corners. Happy to say he only backpassed to Onstad once during this match (probably because De Vos was beside him, giving better guidance). Got beaten badly in the first half on a wall pass, and was fortunate the Honduran wasted the chance.

Radz: mixed opinions on the board today. I think he did well because Hume seemed invisible as his partner. He generated some offensive forays, but just seemed a little off. For instance, late in the first half De Rosario (after giving the ball away in midfield, resulting in a Honduran scoring opportunity) got the ball back and hit a superb 60 yard special down the left wing; Radz got behind the defender but just couldn't kill the ball on the short hop in stride. Granted a tough play, but I have seen him do it before. He also poorly mis-hit a volley on a similar long ball down the right flank by Grande. I think we would get more out of him if we played him with a target man like Occean (or De Rosario in that role).

Hutchison: played really well, earned his goal, yet still looks like a midfielder playing fullback at times, but his defensive positional play will only improve.

Hume: Set play service was poor, but made a nice run to set up a shot. Never provided enough support during the game. Rightly subbed.

Onstad: steady, no complaints, nothing else to say.

De Rosario: a one trick pony on the left flank. After two poor left footed crosses in the first half, in the second half he chose to cut inside to his right foot and was duly stuffed on both occasions. On one it was particularly frustrating because Jazic had made a fine interception, had moved the ball upfield and was running up for the overlap, but De Rosario lost the ball. I wish he was playing more centrally as the target man partner for Radz. Right now, he hustles defensively but he is trying too hard to make things happen offensively, and nothing is going right. Did hit a fantastic pass to Radz and ran well on to a DeGuzman pass, but overall has not been convincing. Has he jumped the shark?

De Guzman: an enigma, wrapped up in a riddle, covered in a shroud. Played his best when he immediately ran at opponents in one on one situations. Played poorly when he dilly-dallied on the ball, though some may argue he did that due to lack of support. Still gives it away too much, either through poor passing or poor shielding. Yet I think he's trying to make things happen on the flank, and I appreciate his efforts. He's definitely not the finished article, but with his continued development we should see a special player in the future.

Watson: plays better when De Vos is beside him. Not spectacular, but that near own goal was scary, and then that defensive header . . . well, maybe he should be the target man strike partner for Radz, because that header was a perfectly placed knockdown, right on the penalty spot. I'm too hard on him because, under pressure, any defender could have done that. Tough break, Mark.

Overall, I was really proud of the team. Under any other circumstances, that was a great result, but we needed a win today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Cheeta

By the way, any of you Winnipeg lads got the match on tape? Totally buggered the recording yesterday so I've no chance for a 2nd sober look at the match. Little help here!

Cheeta, I got a copy. Email me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, it wasn't ruled for offside because the linesman never put up his flag. Of course, there was no foul whatsoever on the play be De Vos so that wasn't the call either. The Referee invoked the special Concacaf rule Z.144 which states that Canada under no circumstances is to be allowed to score 2 goals in a World Cup Qualifying match.

That 2nd goal isn't even close to being a foul - it is actually a worse call than either of the two that screwed us the last time we beat Honduras (and weren't given credit for it). The fact that nobody knows what the hell was called two days after the game sums it up. For all I know he whistled De Rosario for having an un-fashionable hair style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

Guys, it wasn't ruled for offside because the linesman never put up his flag. Of course, there was no foul whatsoever on the play be De Vos so that wasn't the call either. The Referee invoked the special Concacaf rule Z.144 which states that Canada under no circumstances is to be allowed to score 2 goals in a World Cup Qualifying match.

That 2nd goal isn't even close to being a foul - it is actually a worse call than either of the two that screwed us the last time we beat Honduras (and weren't given credit for it). The fact that nobody knows what the hell was called two days after the game sums it up. For all I know he whistled De Rosario for having an un-fashionable hair style.

GL, you are starting to sound like me !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

The Referee invoked the special Concacaf rule Z.144 which states that Canada under no circumstances is to be allowed to score 2 goals in a World Cup Qualifying match.

He should have invoked Special CONCACAF Rule Z.144-XXX, which states

that the ref should **** himself.

Canada gets the short end again and we deserve better. We should be

very proud of these boys who played their hearts out and support

them in their next 2 games.

And for those who want to pick on our coach or the players, after

giving excellent performances under trying circumstances, can also

invoke the Special CONCACAF Rule, too. [}:)]

Try playing in +35C humidity, with hostile crowds, a dubious ref,

and putting up with a Canadian media who only value rankings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Bangoutoforder

I caught the disallowed goal on FSW. You guys have been screwed again. There was no way on this green earth that the play was offside.

Talk about a harsh buzz.

Yes, these 'phantom calls' are a real mystery. (sarcasm)

I told you guys weeks ago that Canada was going to get screwed again.

"Why", you ask ? Because we allow ourselves to be screwed. How many times must we be kicked in the knackers till we stand up and do something about it !? If these BS calls (call them 'criminal', 'phantom', 'fixed', etc...) had happened to England, do you think they would politely smile, do nothing, and let them continue ? Not on your life !

Till we address this problem in a serious manner, get used to it ! (and get used to Canada going nowhere !)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you have to realize that Canada is a minor power in CONCACAF politically.

Mexico and USA are the main ones with the rest of nations just being a sideshow. and really, this is not too uncommon in most confederations. In the last world cup qualifyings (2002), China was put in a group of 5 teams with no real oppositions in it..I think the hardest team they faced was a lousy UAE team.

And really, this is why making it to the World Cup is so hard and such a major accomplishment. Anyone who has endured the walk of world cup qualifying with their teams must get a good laugh at all these millionaire World champions down in USA who play the city next door or next state and become World Champions. In soccer, it's a battle against heat, cold, refs, crowds, jet lag, club vs. country, politics, etc..., just to make it to the World Cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was reading a summary on the Soccernet website and they said Dewaynes goal was called back due to a foul by Jason Devos.

From Soccernet;

"Shortly afterwards, Canada striker Dwayne de Rosario had the ball in the net again but his effort was disallowed for a foul by defender Jason deVos."

Was that way up field or something cuz I didnt know he could run that fast lol!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Reza

But you have to realize that Canada is a minor power in CONCACAF politically.

Mexico and USA are the main ones with the rest of nations just being a sideshow. and really, this is not too uncommon in most confederations. In the last world cup qualifyings (2002), China was put in a group of 5 teams with no real oppositions in it..I think the hardest team they faced was a lousy UAE team.

'Canada is a minor power in CONCACAF.' Is that a justification for Canada having to tolerate biased/corrupt officiating ? If it is (and you may be correct), that's a pretty sad statement and the exact reason why I have suggested that Canada take firm action to address this matter. The mere suggestion 'Canada's minor status' is justification for the treatment Canada recieves is reason for Canada not to bother with this tournament until the situation is rectified. Clearly Canada has no hope of advancing when half our goals are disallowed for bogus calls.

'China have a weak group,' is not the same as Canada continually facing 'phantom calls' that will result in another early exit from World Cup Qualifying. Never mind Asia, look at T&T's group (St Kitts and St Vincent, guaranteed to the Hex).

Nor would I agree with the comment that 'the rest of CONCACAF is a sideshow.' Jamaica, Honduras and Costa Rica are all major regional powers that have made the big show in the past and are capable of beating Mexico or the US on any given day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by fza

Man I can`t believe Canada`s bad luck in this tournament, they`re starting to look like a team I know (Chilean National Team and Chilean Athletes in general)that in the dieing seconds of any important game or tournament choke and can`t hold on to a result, but this is different because Canada does everything well until something out of their reach screws them over.

I thought in soccer a team would go at least 5 or more games before getting robbed again but this is starting to smell weird, only 2 games after they robbed us in Edmonton, it happens again against the same team despite having an "american" ref!!!.

Thanks to Redhat I had the chance to watch the last 2 games and to finally see these guys in action because it`s different than reading this forum, watching the players individually play for their teams abroad or listening to spanish commentators scream like crazy when the goalies kicks a goal kick, and when I see a good soccer team I realise it right away.

After watching the Costa Rica game I couldn`t understand our Fifa ranking and was positive that this Canadian team had the class and game to beat anyone in Concacaf and fight for a "legitimate" place in the World Cup.

I still believe in this team and especially in it`s quality, because it`s another story when the team plays horrible and doesn`t deserve to be in a WC. So lets wait and see things finally fall our way the next 2 games and hope for DIVINE JUSTICE...

Cheers,

fza

Canada has nobody to blame but themselves for the position they are

in, not poor luck. If we had a keeper who could save easy shot we would have come out of Honduras with 3 points, Why Yallop keeps

sticking with this guy i'll never understand, he's utter usless in the goals. The Canadian team can't win it's home games so they don't deserve to advance to the next round, where they would had got beaten badly anyway, so maybe it's good were out now. fza we were not robbed in edmonton or in Honduras, thats just sore losers making excuses

for a bad football team being from Chile i thought you would have known better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by soccerbeast

Canada has nobody to blame but themselves for the position they are

in, not poor luck. If we had a keeper who could save easy shot we would have come out of Honduras with 3 points, Why Yallop keeps

sticking with this guy i'll never understand, he's utter usless in the goals. The Canadian team can't win it's home games so they don't deserve to advance to the next round, where they would had got beaten badly anyway, so maybe it's good were out now. fza we were not robbed in edmonton or in Honduras, thats just sore losers making excuses

for a bad football team being from Chile i thought you would have known better.

SoccerBeast, I'd vowed never to address you again, but I've got to say this: You have disliked the Canadian team from the moment you joined this forum, have never stood behind the lads, and continually shi.t all over them despite very solid efforts in tough circumstances. I get the impression that you thought we were a superpower in soccer, but it is time to take a reality pill. Your continual mean-spiritedness disgusts me--I cannot believe how quickly you crap all over our players. We'd only lost one game and you'd given up on the guys. You are entitled to your opinion, but I suspect that you are merely a troll whose sole delight is insulting our players and our fans, and considering this is forum for supporting Canadian soccer, I am getting the very fast impression that I was wrong from the beginning: You probably should be banned. You may not curse or use expletives or sling racial barbs etc, but this does not mean you are not abusing this forum. You often show little respect for our players and your fellow Voyageurs. It is one thing to disagree--we all do it from time to time--but it is entirely another thing to hurl abuse at this forum and its aims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really thought that you guys had what it took this time. And you had most everything but a bit of luck. It's nice to see that Hume did something about his hair because you do want to put as many sane looking people on the field as possible. That appears to be the only thing that went right for you guys. I was looking forward to a roadie up to GWN but it doesn't look as if it will happen now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we might have a bit more chance of getting a fair shake with refs if the CSA didn't always automatically support corrupt soccer officials in FIFA and CONCACAF such as Warner and Blatter at elections. If we have to support such lowlife for political reasons, at least try and get a bit more leverage for doing so. Of course, it would also help if corrupt officials knew that poor reffing decisions would create a national uproar such as it would in any Central American country rather than being debated on a few fan sites and getting a passing mention in a newspaper article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but it didn't even get a "passing mention" in any newspaper I read. And the funny thing is that DeRo didn't even want to claim it, he seemed kind of...apologetic! "Oops, sorry guys, I forgot we weren't supposed to score two in this one!" Overall I feel strangely calm about the situation, in my mind Canada beat Honduras twice and no one can convince me otherwise...no matter what they report in the papers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by The Beaver

SoccerBeast, I'd vowed never to address you again, but I've got to say this: You have disliked the Canadian team from the moment you joined this forum, have never stood behind the lads, and continually shi.t all over them despite very solid efforts in tough circumstances. I get the impression that you thought we were a superpower in soccer, but it is time to take a reality pill. Your continual mean-spiritedness disgusts me--I cannot believe how quickly you crap all over our players. We'd only lost one game and you'd given up on the guys. You are entitled to your opinion, but I suspect that you are merely a troll whose sole delight is insulting our players and our fans, and considering this is forum for supporting Canadian soccer, I am getting the very fast impression that I was wrong from the beginning: You probably should be banned. You may not curse or use expletives or sling racial barbs etc, but this does not mean you are not abusing this forum. You often show little respect for our players and your fellow Voyageurs. It is one thing to disagree--we all do it from time to time--but it is entirely another thing to hurl abuse at this forum and its aims.

Word Beaver!

I also vowed not to respond to SoccerBeast`s replies...I can`t believe this dude (SoccerBeast) gave up after the first game...man with that attitud he`s going to do very well in his personal life when facing adversity..oh well.....

Living in a "soccer" nation for a while now I do know better and I still believe in the quality of this team...and if you think CELTIC or Scottish soccer is quality, then I think you chose the wrong sport, their performance in the CHamps league is absolutely embarrasing and very poor....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anybody who follows Celtic's progression from year to year are really surprised by the Champions League results in this group.

You're allways hopefull. Even disappointed. But rarely surprised.

You know what's a funny thing though? You allways seem to be able to find little gems here and there which give you hope for the future. Kinda like following Canada I suppose...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Bangoutoforder

I suppose it's down to opinion but there is no way that Marquez and Radzinski are the two best players in Concacaf.

I suppose you are correct with respect to opinion Bangoutoforder, obviously about Radzinski. But coming in to this round, what Concacaf striker had better credentials than being the top scorer for a English Premiership team the last 3 years? Who is a better defender than Marquez?

In all honesty, I did not mean to imply they were the "two best" players in Concacaf, but that they were playing to the highest standard in top 4 European leagues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...