Daniel Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 I started following Canada in 1999 with GCQ. This was the last time we had GCQs, followed by 3 straight automatic qualifications. We've also had minimal WCQs the last 2 times with no Hex. This has brought me to an initial conclusion that Canada must play a ridiculously low number of meaningful games, by which I mean official games where we're still in the hunt. It also goes to show how little games we've played when we haven't *had* to play. Here is the Breakdown by year since 1999: 1999: 11 games: 8 friendlies, 3 competitive (3 meaningful) 2000: 17 games: 4 friendlies, 13 competitive (11 meaningful) 2001: 6 games: 3 friendlies, 3 competitive (3 meaningful) 2002: 7 games: 2 friendlies, 5 competitive including 3rd place GC (5 meaningful) 2003: 9 games: 7 friendlies, 2 competitive (2 meaningful) 2004: 9 games: 1 friendly, 8 competitive (7 meaningful) 2005: 8 games: 5 friendlies, 3 competitive (3 meaningful) 7-year totals: 30 friendlies, 37 competitive (34 meaningful) Of the 37 competitive, 18 have been in tournament play (GC and CC) Of those 37 games, 16 have been WCQ and 3 GCQ (19 total). Since 2001 inclusively, we've played 39 games in 6 years, which averages out to a bit more than 6 games a year. Taking out competitive games, we've seeked out all of 18 games over 6 years, an average of 3 a year. For comparison's sake, an average European team will have played around 40 competitive games solely in qualifying for 4 tournaments; CONMEBOL teams will have played 36 only in CAQ and at least 9 in CA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadasBest Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 Let's compare this to T&T, sorry don't have time to do a detailed Analysis, but the results are obvious: 1999: 9 Games 2000: 25 Games 2001: 23 Games 2002: 8 Games 2003: 15 Games 2004: 23 Games 2005: 29 Games Total: 132 Total Games, 30 Friendly Games Maybe Canada should have to qualify through the caribbean tournaments, get us some more games under our belt. With that Luxembourg performance, there's a possibility that we would fare good against Anguilla. (Maybe even Belize) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 Ouch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Daniel This has brought me to an initial conclusion that Canada must play a ridiculously low number of meaningful games, by which I mean official games where we're still in the hunt. It also goes to show how little games we've played when we haven't *had* to play. Here is the Breakdown by year since 1999: Well yeah. I recall being ticked about this moreso in 2000 than in 2004. If you want to take your argument even further, in WCQ for 2002, we were eliminated after the second game in Panama during the semifinal round. That was because Mexico went out and earned a draw against T&T. Therefore, yes, the number of meaningfull games that Canada plays is ridiculously low. Being in a tough group, Canada was alive for a longer time in 2004 but still, the amount of games that really count for something come around every four years and last only for a 4-5 month period. Thats terrible and most of the blame for that rests with the region. Specifically, the competitions format. The flipside of course, if you win those key games that you are supposed to, then we wouldn't be having these discussions. If we beat T&T in Edm in 2000, we would very likely have ended up playing in Hex and there you have 10 more meaninfull games for you. How beneficial would that have been in the long term. If we had a competition format for WCQ similar to Conmebol or UEFA we wouldn't be having these discussions. The concacaf qualifying process is, without doubt, the silliest in the world. I suspect that $$$ or lack of $$$ is the main reason for this. Yes, you need to play freindlies to get better. But playing truly meaningfull games is exponentially more beneficial and a much better way to distinguish the men from the boys on the evaluation front. In retrospect, I agree with an earlier point that we would probably be better being forced to to play in those preliminary resioanl qualifying tournaments that most of the carribean countries are forced to play in. But in those scenarios, you have one bad break and your out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 This occured to me last summer and I believe I'm correct on this. We've had to qualify for the Gold Cup once and the time we did we won it. cheers, matthew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 This occured to me last summer and I believe I'm correct on this. We've had to qualify for the Gold Cup once and the time we did we won it. cheers, matthew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted November 24, 2005 Author Share Posted November 24, 2005 Last time, we faced Cuba, El Salvador and Haiti for 2 spots. Qualifying games also bring significant points for FIFA standings, which explains why a team like Cuba is higher than us despite having had terrible GCs and not making it to WCQ semis in 2000 and 2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redhat Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 We need to play a lot of games, including tournaments. Didn't we play in the LG Cup in Egypt as well as the Confed Cup? The results are reflected in another relatively good Gold Cup 2002. (I say relatively because, again, we got screwed by refs disallowing goals, phantom penalties, and shabby scheduling.) We used to prepare well by having a Canada Cup, thereby providing some domestic exposure as well as international competition (Chile, Iran, Guatemala, Ecuador,etc.). I wish they can start one up again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted November 25, 2005 Author Share Posted November 25, 2005 GC2002 wasn't all that great: 2-0 v Haiti 0-2 v Ecuador 1-1 v Martinique 0-0 v USA 3-2 v S Korea in the 3rd place game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redhat Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Daniel GC2002 wasn't all that great: 2-0 v Haiti 0-2 v Ecuador 1-1 v Martinique 0-0 v USA 3-2 v S Korea in the 3rd place game Are we nit-picking here? Okay, the Haiti game could have been 3-0 had the stupid ref not ruled the 3rd goal, a result of a Haitian backpass, offside. The Ecuador game, played in Florida to a pro-Ecuador crowd, was looking good heading into the 2nd half. Then the Aguinagua diving show erupted, and a penalty in extra time on an outrageous, phantom foul resulted in a 2-0 loss which led to the drawing of straws. Of course we had some luck, but if the goal against Haiti stood, we would not have to do the lottery. The Martinique game, although not great, was again subject to a few ref blunders. But Jason Bent saved the day, despite Brennan missing the PK. Our reward for winning was a cross-country trip to LA and meet the USA, where Lars demonstrated his shot-blocking abilities. The final result was that WE LOST BY PKs. And then we beat a South Korean team, which later placed 4th in the World Cup, with the de Rosario show. So, as much as I respect your opinion, I just beg to differ. The 2002 edition was pretty successful considering our roster at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted November 25, 2005 Author Share Posted November 25, 2005 I'm just saying... Same as the 2003 WYC. Sure, we were close to the semis, but it boils down to this: - Loss v Brazil - Loss v Australia - Win v Czech - Win v Burkina Faso - Loss v Spain 2-0-3 yet some people are portraying this as some sort of golden generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Daniel I'm just saying... Same as the 2003 WYC. Sure, we were close to the semis, but it boils down to this: - Loss v Brazil - Loss v Australia - Win v Czech - Win v Burkina Faso - Loss v Spain 2-0-3 yet some people are portraying this as some sort of golden generation. That is true Daniel, but we were close vs. both Brazil and Australia, took out a strong Czech side, then a much-liked Burkina Faso who had done damage in the first round, and in the quarter finals came back to tie Spain after the Iniesta goal with a great Hume strike, then he hit the post on a marvellous free kick, the rebound went to Lemire and he shot it wide. Very close to a 2-1 there, then Spain fell to 10 men after yellowing out trying to stop our counters. We blew it in extra time on a dumb defensive lapse, didn't even give ourselves a chance to use our extra man to an advantage. It was a strong bunch of kids, led by Hutch and Hume (though I also liked Marshall), and a pretty strong tournament whatever the statistical record might say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 Hume hitting the post against Spain......ischhhh.....I don't want to know what would've happen if that ball would've gone in. Two superb strike in that game. I think our results in 2003 were pretty good even if we lost 3 games and were a lucky to go to the 1/16. If you look at our results in 2001 and 2005, you can see the difference with the 2003 edition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 quote:Originally posted by redhat Kind of the way I see it also. Ok there were a few breaks here and there in the 2002 GC as there were in 2000. But we have strayed away from that level of performance recently IMO. The exception being the match versus Spain. But I don't think that performaces such as what we delivered versus Northern Ireland and Lux are anywhere near the level that we displayed versus, say, Ecuador in 2001. Who were WC bound. More telling look how we performed versus CRC in 2000 and 2002 versus how looked ( ignore even the results) in the two matches in the last WCQ effort. I am basing this more on the subjective rather the scores. same applies to the WYC that Daniel alluded to. Sure we got some breaks in 2003. But I still maintain that we looked IMO much better in 2003 in the games I saw on TV versus US in qualifying and versus Spain at the WYC than we did in all the qualifying matches I saw and at the WC in 2005. This IMO lends credance to the addage that you have to be good to be lucky and I am sure that the opposite of that also holds true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 You are probably thinking about the 2003 CR match (we didn't actually play them in the 2002 Gold Cup). Its been a strange thing this year in that generally people have liked our performances when we have lost (against Portugal, Spain, Costa Rica & the Refs, and the US in the Gold Cup - I'm leaving out the home friendly against Honduras since only a handful on this board even saw it) but have been disappointed in our performances when we win (against NI, Cuba & Lux). Not sure if this is a vindication of Holger's defence/bunker type of game that he employed far more often than Yallop has (ie. when we go out & attack we lose, if we bunker & counter we win) or the case that we play better against better opponents and it either means something or is against a high-profile team. One thing that has to change in the 2007 Gold Cup, if Yallop is still there and we are seeing signs of progress in the quality of our play, possession, chances created etc. is that we have to learn how to win when it counts under Yallop. We haven't done that yet, and while we've been screwed on occasion by the Refs, we have to start to get over that and rebound for victories (because I don't have much hope that the quality of officiating is going to get any better, sadly) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted November 25, 2005 Author Share Posted November 25, 2005 Another aspect of the "nothing to get excited about" is that we're behind the 8-ball so often that we (the supporters) can't really get up for the other games: - 2000 WCQ: After the first game it was gonna be hard, after the 2nd, we were pretty much done. - 2001 Confed Cup: 1 points from 2 games and having to beat Cameroon. - 2001 WYC: the first game against Irak sinks our chances. - 2002 GC: We're up after Haiti, down after Ecuador, scared after Martinique and down after losing to the US. Korea is consolation. - 2003 GC: We're up after CRC, down after Cuba - 2003 WYC: We're down after two games, up after 2 more and that last one looked good. - 2004 WCQ: We're down after the first game (again) and pretty much out of it by game 2. - 2005 GC: We're down after the first two games and mildly up for 10 minutes during the 3rd game. This is not even taking into account repeated failed OQ and U17 WCQ. Being a Canadian supporter is depressing: the games we've won have been depressing and the ones that might give us some reason to cheer, we've lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.