Ian Kennett Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Once again, the game plan seemed to be to "directly" give the ball away as many times as possible even when under no pressure. This kick and run style is so hard to watch. Against a stronger team on Sunday, we are in trouble unless we change our game plan. On a positive note, Sinclair is a cut above. What class! Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest speedmonk42 Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 I stopped counting at 20 needless 'I have lots of time' but I am going to kick it down the field to the other team anyway.... giveaways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cndsoccer Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 they were awful...unwatchable...its sinclair and 10 hackers. i think they miss hooper and lang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ref Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Ian Kennett Once again, the game plan seemed to be to "directly" give the ball away as many times as possible even when under no pressure. This kick and run style is so hard to watch. Against a stronger team on Sunday, we are in trouble unless we change our game plan. On a positive note, Sinclair is a cut above. What class! Cheers! In spite of the style the Raggea Girlz got outclassed. I think the held their own for the first 40 minutes. After Sinclair's first goal they just became unglued and I don't think they had any shots at Macleod. I liked how Mattheson played, for a small lady, she plays twice has hard. A bit disappointed with Timko. Our defense was not really tested. It will be different on next game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Beaver Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 So frustrating to watch, I agree. Are our players simply not capable of playing a game of solid possession? Have they even been given the chance to do so? I remain very skeptical about Pellerud. Unless he pulls off something amazing next year in China--at least a semi-final appearance--I say let's thank him for advancing the team on the fitness/high energy front, but otherwise give him the boot. Bring in a good US coach, or a German. Bridge is not the answer, either. Yes, Sinclair is several cuts about the rest. Kiss showed some signs of quality football, as did Morneau and Chapman. But Sinclair is heads above the rest. Lang, to disagree, is also a hack. I know it is sacrilege to say so, but she's a hack with a big heart and a heavy foot. Maybe she'll learn how to play a more complex, sophisticated game while at UCLA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 The thread title should be "WE QUALIFIED FOR THE 2007 WWC"........... I agree pretty pathetic soccer, not fun to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest speedmonk42 Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 I think what bothers me the most is that I genuinely feel they can play much better soccer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cndsoccer Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 there lucky they did not play mexico...who is that striker franko...no skill at all....timko was awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Nice to know we qualified, but painful, painful, painful to watch. Based upon this the woman's game is going downhill from a quality of play/entertainment perspective. No wonder there was only 14 people in the stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 its was horible is this the real road to success? would have loved to watch the Mexico USA game to see the big contrast in entertainment value for the neutral. Canada was lucking to play Jamaica instead of Mexico. hope Linford was watching and notice that this crap will never sell. On a good note,heard the result on radio this morning a first coming from that radio station must be part of the new direction Linford was talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ref Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca ... there was only 14 people in the stands. Isn't that just incredible. Was there any marketing done for this Gold Cup? I think they would have had more than 100 people had they played closed doors. If the games would be played here in Canada, surely there would have been over 5000 spectators, even if it was the US vs Jamaica. The US organizers are looking like a handful of incompetent morons. Between players, coaches and assistants there were more than spectators. Even in South America the women games get a far better attendance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Anybody have any idea what kind of attendance there was at the second game, USA vs Mexico? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Be worried, Canada. I only saw the last 30 minutes but Jamaica looked the more enterprising team with nice work passing and getting open. I was wondering how Canada were leading while chasing the ball instead of playing with it. Yes, we beat them easily 4-0 but at this rate, in a couple of years they may be even with us. Remember the men's team around 1995, capable of a comfortable 2-0 victory over the Jamaican men. Two years later, they outqualify us to reach the World Cup. Unfortunately, the CSA only seems concerned with results. If we are winning, everything must be fine. Very dangerous if we want to maintain our position as a power in women's soccer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Rollins1555362254 Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 quote:Originally posted by ray Be worried, Canada. I only saw the last 30 minutes but Jamaica looked the more enterprising team with nice work passing and getting open. I was wondering how Canada were leading while chasing the ball instead of playing with it. Yes, we beat them easily 4-0 but at this rate, in a couple of years they may be even with us. Remember the men's team around 1995, capable of a comfortable 2-0 victory over the Jamaican men. Two years later, they outqualify us to reach the World Cup. Unfortunately, the CSA only seems concerned with results. If we are winning, everything must be fine. Very dangerous if we want to maintain our position as a power in women's soccer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Beaver Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 quote:Originally posted by ray Be worried, Canada. I only saw the last 30 minutes but Jamaica looked the more enterprising team with nice work passing and getting open. I was wondering how Canada were leading while chasing the ball instead of playing with it. Yes, we beat them easily 4-0 but at this rate, in a couple of years they may be even with us. Remember the men's team around 1995, capable of a comfortable 2-0 victory over the Jamaican men. Two years later, they outqualify us to reach the World Cup. Unfortunately, the CSA only seems concerned with results. If we are winning, everything must be fine. Very dangerous if we want to maintain our position as a power in women's soccer. Results are important, mind you, and we should at least give the women credit for their success here. Still, I would agree that keeping with the current program appears very dangerous. To a player, the Jamaican's had better individual skill and a better understanding of the game, usage of the field, and strengths in passing etc. They lacked the tempo and fitness, but these are things easily found. I suspect that Linford and the board felt it was too late in the day to axe Pellerud, what with the WWC qualifications and the WWC so near. Give him till China, see what he does, if we make any progress, then make a decision. I want the girls to do well, but I've a feeling we won't advance as far as we did last time, and unless we show real improvements in tactics etc, I think the board will have plenty of reason to "move in a new direction." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Beaver Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 quote:Originally posted by ray Be worried, Canada. I only saw the last 30 minutes but Jamaica looked the more enterprising team with nice work passing and getting open. I was wondering how Canada were leading while chasing the ball instead of playing with it. Yes, we beat them easily 4-0 but at this rate, in a couple of years they may be even with us. Remember the men's team around 1995, capable of a comfortable 2-0 victory over the Jamaican men. Two years later, they outqualify us to reach the World Cup. Unfortunately, the CSA only seems concerned with results. If we are winning, everything must be fine. Very dangerous if we want to maintain our position as a power in women's soccer. Results are important, mind you, and we should at least give the women credit for their success here. Still, I would agree that keeping with the current program appears very dangerous. To a player, the Jamaican's had better individual skill and a better understanding of the game, usage of the field, and strengths in passing etc. They lacked the tempo and fitness, but these are things easily found. I suspect that Linford and the board felt it was too late in the day to axe Pellerud, what with the WWC qualifications and the WWC so near. Give him till China, see what he does, if we make any progress, then make a decision. I want the girls to do well, but I've a feeling we won't advance as far as we did last time, and unless we show real improvements in tactics etc, I think the board will have plenty of reason to "move in a new direction." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ed Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 quote:Originally posted by ray Be worried, Canada. I only saw the last 30 minutes but Jamaica looked the more enterprising team with nice work passing and getting open. I was wondering how Canada were leading while chasing the ball instead of playing with it. Yes, we beat them easily 4-0 but at this rate, in a couple of years they may be even with us. Remember the men's team around 1995, capable of a comfortable 2-0 victory over the Jamaican men. Two years later, they outqualify us to reach the World Cup. Unfortunately, the CSA only seems concerned with results. If we are winning, everything must be fine. Very dangerous if we want to maintain our position as a power in women's soccer. I'd rather see a 4-0 **** kicking than 90 minutes of pretty ball thanks!! The women are in the WC. I'd silently endure quite a few punt and run displays from our men if they could dominate in CONCACAF like our ladies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ed Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 quote:Originally posted by The Beaver Results are important, mind you, and we should at least give the women credit for their success here. Still, I would agree that keeping with the current program appears very dangerous. To a player, the Jamaican's had better individual skill and a better understanding of the game, usage of the field, and strengths in passing etc. They lacked the tempo and fitness, but these are things easily found. I suspect that Linford and the board felt it was too late in the day to axe Pellerud, what with the WWC qualifications and the WWC so near. Give him till China, see what he does, if we make any progress, then make a decision. I want the girls to do well, but I've a feeling we won't advance as far as we did last time, and unless we show real improvements in tactics etc, I think the board will have plenty of reason to "move in a new direction." What a load of manure. There was not one person on the field with a better touch or overall skill than Sinclair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soccerpro Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Don't let Terpsfan or anyone else here that feels dominating CONCACAF minnows and qualifying for the world cup is good enough see this thread. People here blew their stacks when I criticized the way Canada played during the Peace Cup. Canada will be passed on the world stage if they continue on the kick and run path, sooner or later, it will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 quote:Originally posted by ray Be worried, Canada. I only saw the last 30 minutes but Jamaica looked the more enterprising team with nice work passing and getting open. I was wondering how Canada were leading while chasing the ball instead of playing with it. Yes, we beat them easily 4-0 but at this rate, in a couple of years they may be even with us. Remember the men's team around 1995, capable of a comfortable 2-0 victory over the Jamaican men. Two years later, they outqualify us to reach the World Cup. Unfortunately, the CSA only seems concerned with results. If we are winning, everything must be fine. Very dangerous if we want to maintain our position as a power in women's soccer. Well if you only saw the last thirty minutes, you missed 2 hit goalposts, a crossbar and 2 horrific offside calls. It was domination, sloppy as it appeared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan68 Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Well, let see. Two ties against China. A win and a tie versus France. A win against Sweden. Two wins against Italy. All of which are ranked higher than Canada in the FIFA rankins. The last time I checked none of those teams play in CONCACAF. Oh yes we did loose to USA (CONCACAF) 1 - 0 and they are only the SECOND ranked team in the world. Why can't people acknowledge that whatever Pellerud isn't, he is certainly successful. It seems to me that some people who post on this site would like to see the Canadian women's team crash and burn so they can say "I told you so." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 While it's certainly horrible soccer to watch, they're winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 did not have to play that ugly to win against Jamaica any of our w-league teams except for the Sudbury canadians would have beaten that Jamaican side and does it in style. with the kind of preparation time and financial resources that Pelerud has been awarded it was pure garbage displayed by his team. it was sickening to watch. had the Jamaican coach had the kind of luxury that Pelerud has they would have been the one moving on. with the residency program and the amount of game preparations the crap we witness on wednesday is unacceptable against a team that receive probably ten times less support. 75 % of our passes either fails to find the intented recipient or was over struck as if it was a shot on goal. the womens game need to take a new direction too and I hope Linford will look into that before we keep wasting talents and financial resources. there is a lot of marketing potential but the product has to be entertaining. if we meet Mexico against in the semi final of the Olympics qualifying we will be toasted against unless we start taking a new approach now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ref Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 I found interesting Sinclair's declarations to the media saying that they had been preparing for a full year for this game. Well, I say that such a long preparation is certainly commendable and responsible, but after a whole year, this is the best they can come up with? Surely not the players' fault, after all they have to follow the coach's direction, otherwise we know what happens to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest speedmonk42 Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 It seems to me that some people who post on this site would like to see the Canadian women's team crash and burn so they can say "I told you so." --------------------------------------- No. You are wrong. People on this site are frustrated because they feel the team can play much better and the coach is holding them back with soccer that keeps them in the stone age. Nothing in the world of soccer is evolving faster than the womens game. We are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.