Jump to content

Canada - Netherlands [R]


AlanDouglas

Recommended Posts

1-0 win for Canada. Andrea Neil scored in the 85th minute in a scramble in front following a corner by Rhian Wilkinson. Both players were second-half subs. Scrambly game, but Canada had the best of the chances, with a 10-3 edge in shots. 3,162 in attendance in a cold evening at UBC's Thunderbird Stadium in Vancouver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It rarely happens but today here it was.Holland-Canada or to be politically correct Canada-Holland.I had a ball cheered for all the goals scored and I was impressed with the Dutch team knowing how far they were behind Canada over the years.

I enjoy this rivalry and I hope that this will also the case with the boys.I really hope that some solid contacts were set up for that reason alone.Hey I would love to see Holland participate in the home opener in Toronto. Thanks girls you were just great and keep up the good work for Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pellerud gets criticized for not playing a possession game. How much more possession does anyone want in their last game. I think it was around 75%. Corner kicks was something like 13 to 1. Shots on goals was lopsided as well. And as a corollary they won the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by The Ref

Pellerud gets criticized for not playing a possession game. How much more possession does anyone want in their last game. I think it was around 75%. Corner kicks was something like 13 to 1. Shots on goals was lopsided as well. And as a corollary they won the game.

Always arguing with the Refs I am :D Did you watch the game?

From what I saw neither team had possession for any length of time, that is, for longer than five seonds unless it was in the goalkeepers control or while they were lining up for a free kick when technically I guess they were in possession so to me in a game like this it is totally meaningless stat. Corner Kicks to me are a wonderful measurement - of heroic defending or of good chances not finished, I think there was a bit of both of this game but more of the latter.

This is a game IMO that Canada should have won by at least 6 goals but the inability (and that is not the right word because I know the players have the ability) to hold the ball up a bit in the middle of the park and draw out the ten Dutch defenders and then play accurate balls into the space that would have been created behind the backs limited our chances to one scrambled goal and two set plays. We turned what should have been an easy victory against a lesser opponent into a lottery with the clincher not coming until the 71st minute after scoring twice in the opening ten minutes.

Statistically it was a perfect game for Pellerud and his philosophy. A win is a win and 67% of the goals game from set plays and the ball stayed for the most part in the attacking half of the field. From a soccer point of view I think 4500 people went home happy that thye had watched a win but thinking they could have watched the highlights and got some other chores done on a Sunny Saturday afternoon. “We played another solid game; maybe more solid than spectacular,” said Head Coach Even Pellerud following the victory.

In my opinion we will not beat either the Americans or the Germans playing this way (or a number of other countries that can match us physically and are technically and tactically capable of playing a good counter attack game) if our stated goal is to win the World Cup next year I just don't see us doing it this way. I think we will make it through to the second round for sure but then playing lottery ball could make for a short stay.

I could be wrong and I hope I am.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not see the game in Victoria but I was disappointed with the standard of play in the first game at Thunderbird Stadium. It was messy, very few successfully executed passing plays, still too much kick and run and coughing up possession needlessly. Frankly I have seem better played games at the Metro Womens's premier level in Vancouver. Still, hard to beat the atmosphere of an international game :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Response to Bill Ault.

Many people who dislike Pellerud tactis are content with accepting that although the WNT gets some success they still don't like the style. And that is fine with me. You on the other hand have raised the criticism to another level, which seems to be a negation of whatever good they do. If I can be so bold as to summarize your points:

1. Neither team had possession for any length of time.

So Mr. Ault, who had possession then? the ball girls, the air?

2. In a game like this, possession is totally meaningless stat.

So if it is meaningless why do we predicate more possession then?

3. Corner kicks is a measurement of chances not finished.

When many goals are scored from corner kicks it sounds to me it is good to earn them.

4. The team should have won by at least 6 goals but their inability prevented that.

When I look at all the awards and recognition that our players receive I would never say they lack ability.

5. If they hold the ball up a bit in the middle they could score more with more accurate balls into the space.

They could also lose more possession in a more dangerous place with the opponents right there.

6. What should have been an easy victory against a lesser opponent was turned into a lottery.

Maybe it was our superiority and ability of our players that made the Dutch look like a lesser opponent.

7. The public could have done other chores and just watch highlites.

I think the 4500 people there support the team regardless and I don't think anyone went home to do other chores.

8. We will not beat the Americans and Germans or a number of other countries playing this way.

I am optimistic that after 20 games and 100 days of training as arranged for the women program that we will be able to do so.

9. Our style in your words is called -playing lottery ball-.

You can call it whatever you want, I rather support the team and the coaching staff right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by The Ref

Response to Bill Ault.

1. Neither team had possession for any length of time.

So Mr. Ault, who had possession then? the ball girls, the air?

Your guess is as good as mine but I just watched the game again and the ball was in actual play less than 25 minutes of the first half - I did not do the same analysis for the second but I'm sure it was similar.

quote:

2. In a game like this, possession is totally meaningless stat.

So if it is meaningless why do we predicate more possession then?

It's not just about possession, IMO but meaningful possession, dictating play, forcing the other team do something they do not want to do when they do not want to do it. We did not do this despite the opportunity presented by the Dutch to do so.

quote:

3. Corner kicks is a measurement of chances not finished.

When many goals are scored from corner kicks it sounds to me it is good to earn them.

No argument there - if you capitalize on them. We put three behind the goal not something I would expect from International level players.

quote:

4. The team should have won by at least 6 goals but their inability prevented that.

When I look at all the awards and recognition that our players receive I would never say they lack ability.

Read it again I said it was an inability to hold the ball and said that they did in fact have the ability to do so. So I guess we can blame tactical dictates then.

quote:

5. If they hold the ball up a bit in the middle they could score more with more accurate balls into the space.

They could also lose more possession in a more dangerous place with the opponents right there.

If they were playing a quality opponent who was pressuring high agreed. The Dutch IMO were not that strong and certainly were not pressuring high with one lone forward.

quote:

6. What should have been an easy victory against a lesser opponent was turned into a lottery.

Maybe it was our superiority and ability of our players that made the Dutch look like a lesser opponent.

Agreed we are much better than them and made them look lesser but we did not take advantage of our physical and technical superiority because we kept giving the ball away when we did not need to.

quote:

7. The public could have done other chores and just watch highlites.

I think the 4500 people there support the team regardless and I don't think anyone went home to do other chores.

I don't think anyone left early to do chores but there certainly were not too many WOW! moments.

quote:

8. We will not beat the Americans and Germans or a number of other countries playing this way.

I am optimistic that after 20 games and 100 days of training as arranged for the women program that we will be able to do so.

I too am hopeful this is the case but the Germans and Americans will be doing the same as well. Again just my opinion but if we cannot vary our style of play and dictate the pace of play the best teams will beat us. Again I hope I'm wrong.

quote:

9. Our style in your words is called -playing lottery ball-.

You can call it whatever you want, I rather support the team and the coaching staff right now.

I'll cheer just as loud as the next guy or gal but I think we can do better.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by The Ref

Pellerud gets criticized for not playing a possession game. How much more possession does anyone want in their last game. I think it was around 75%. Corner kicks was something like 13 to 1. Shots on goals was lopsided as well. And as a corollary they won the game.

If you beat a lousy team playing a lousy game does that make you good?

We lost to Mexico in Olympic qaulifying with Pelleruds "long searching ball" aproach to the game. Either you get lucky with it or you don't. Most time against solid teams you don't.

At the last world cup we won against some weak teams (Japan, Argentina) lost to better teams (Germany, Sweden, USA) and had a hot goalie and some luck against China. Had we been drawn with two good teams- we don't even get past the group stage. The draw in 2003 flattered us.

We have to be able to maintain possesion and create real solid chances at goal. How often do we find players with space in the 18 box? And takes risks and confidence in your talent to play a progressive game. You need to have some change in pace, some gears so to speak. Long Short Short Long. It can't always be NCAA tier 2 soccer played at breakneck speeds with no real build up.

And until then, we HAVE to be lucky to beat the top 4-7 teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lousy it was.

he is calling it as it is.

way too many hopeful balls

players had to run after long those balls to keeps possesions.

as much as I was encourage to see the way the men played agaianst Austria that give me hope that we are improving.

the same cannot be said about the womens performance on sportnet saturday.

it was plain ugly specially for a team that have been together so often.

it looks like it does not matter how many time they are assembled they still revert to the same uninspired kick and run game that we have seen from the same lineup over and over again.

the only player that has shown some creativity was Sophie.

Ottawa fury has an outstanding creative midfielder in Kelly Parker

creatively and vision wise better than her teamate fury Matterson and also better than Timko.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by sj

lousy it was.

he is calling it as it is.

way too many hopeful balls

players had to run after long those balls to keeps possesions.

as much as I was encourage to see the way the men played agaianst Austria that give me hope that we are improving.

the same cannot be said about the womens performance on sportnet saturday.

it was plain ugly specially for a team that have been together so often.

it looks like it does not matter how many time they are assembled they still revert to the same uninspired kick and run game that we have seen from the same lineup over and over again.

the only player that has shown some creativity was Sophie.

Ottawa fury has an outstanding creative midfielder in Kelly Parker

creatively and vision wise better than her teamate fury Matterson and also better than Timko.

The defense rests!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Bill's analysis of the game. However, while I agree that the team used to use the long ball in their kick-and-run I think I recognized a change in this game.

Instead, this time it looked as though the Canadian team was trying to speed up the play. Those quick one-timer kicks didn't always go where they were supposed to, but they weren't usually huge kicks up the field. Lots of chips, flick ons, give and go's... Some that worked and many that didn't. I think most of the plays that didn't work were due to the poor surface and the increased pace that the team was trying.

I like that they're trying this style of play and look forward to some more entertaining soccer when they get used to playing at speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Richard

The man is Norwegian and clearly holds Norwegian citizenship, hence the designator after his name.

i've been looking back at CSA game reports and it's been a bit like this, a bit like that, and a bit in between ...

you've taken that position but i'm not convinced ... i've seen it three ways ... i'm fluxed ...

he coaches CANADA , he's paid to coach CANADA, why is norway being credited ...

if he changes to mexican citizenship (for some reason), will it read:

Head Coach: Even Pellerud (MEX)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I watched the second game, and though I was happy to see a win, I was disappointed to see how poorly we played. To be clear, I am not arguing that we need to improve our style for the sake of some sort of soccer aesthetic. Yes, it is the beautiful game, but I'm more concerned with effective, winning soccer, and I fear we will be left in the dust if we do not play a more complex, dynamic brand of soccer very soon. Germany and the US are miles a head of us, but a number of teams are starting to close the gap on those two powerhouses. Brazil will get there fast, and with the proper investment, so will a good many European teams. China is not a bad side--they've been stronger--and Norway and Sweden do their thing, though Norway's addiction to Pellerudian tactics are starting to really hurt their results.

I appreciate Pellerud's efforts in making our women play an up-tempo game, and understand the idea of putting the opposition under direct and immediate pressure, but too often we win the ball and simply whirl around and whack it up field hoping that it might land close to a striker. I don't know how many times we could have won the ball and switched the field to a very open wingback or midfielder. It is as though Pellerud has said, as soon as you win the ball, fire it up field.

Mexico and Costa Rica will leave us in the dust soon enough if we do not improve considerably. I support the women, but I question Pellerud's vision. I suspect he is applying tactics that once worked for him with Norway, when the women's game was still in its infancy and physical domination was everything and skill not that important. He is out of date--or am I missing something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...