Trillium Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 Based on the results of Auz vs Norge, and especially what seems to be Australia\s team speed...and Canada admitted problems with fitness of the players.... I think we are in very tight the only hope will be a stellar game for our keepers... and for Pelerud to play Lang ..for under forty minutes...she cant sustain a full half let alone ninety high intensity minutes. Canada will need an outstanding performance by a holding ..central midfielder who can successfully feed the wings... its clear even in beating Ghana we did not have a possesion advantage, we cant win if the other team has the ball for over fifty five percent of the the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqing Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 To win, we need to score first, then can sit back, play tight defense and hope players like Lang or Sinclair can hit them in the counter attack. Of course Mcleod needs to be in top form. I still think Aussies will probably win this one simply because they are the better team(I don't understand why people still underestimate them) and play a more attractive possession type football, as shown in the game against Norway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan68 Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 Why do you say they are the better team? Remember Norway only needed a tie against Australia and of course a better win against Ghana than Australia to take first place in the group. They would not have wanted to take a chance of a loss. I suspect that this was Germany's thinking against England. They got plenty of goals against Argentina and only need to beat a Japanese team that only could score one goal against Argentina to finish top of their group. World Cup group play is all about winning your first game and then counting the points to see what you need to finish top two. I seem to remember a game a couple of world cups ago where if it was tied each team would advance but a win would eliminate the other team. It made for a very dull game with very little effort and a lot of back passes. Canada knows exactly what they have to do and I suspect it will be a close game and I just hope it is not decieded by a lucky bounce or a bad call. (Unless the bounce or call helps Canada) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ref Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 I think McLeod has done a terrific job in goal and she seems confident and in command. Just wonder, this will be very disappointing for Karina LeBlanc not being called upon to play, after all she has done and all her looking forward to play in a WC. In a game like this, where the pressure on the GK by Ghana was virtually nil, why not put her on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesW Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Trillium we cant win if the other team has the ball for over fifty five percent of the the time. If you feel that way you may as well stay in bed. Perdictions are hard things to toy around with. This morning right after the Canada vs Ghana game I was podcasting with Cheeta and asked him if we could be confident going into the next game. The answer at that time, and you must remember then it was looking like all Canada would need was a tie, was "no clue" to sum it up. Even though we now need to win, I think the answer should still be the same, we have no idea what is going to happen. Who knows, maybe we will get lucky and our goalie will make ten diving saves and we bounce one in, 1-0 we move on despite only having the ball 30% of the time? Could happen, or we could lose 3-0 and be packing. One thing I am pleased about is we seemed much stronger in the 2nd half against Ghana then in the 1st half. I would say that is a good sign for this upcoming match, I don't see another Norway type game where we run out of gas at the half. It should be close until the end. But as always, the ball is round. One thing I find interesting about this is if we win we are all happy for the girls and so on. If we lose it is only more reason to get upset at the CSA, rightly or wrongly. The way I see it, we can't lose! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan68 Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 Ball possession as a stat can be misleading. Ghana had 54% to Canada's 46% close to Trillium's prediction for a loss and yet Canada wins the match 4 - 0. A more telling statistic is goal chances. Shots on goal, Shots wide, saves etc. For the Ghana match Canada had 14 shots on goal for Ghana's 3 and 9 wide to Ghana's 10. Most of their wide shots were from far out and although China and Brazil have players that can score from 25 yds with hard shots, Ghana was never a threat. For the upcoming match against Australia we have to "dance with the one who brought us" and this means playing to our big players upfront with balls that cause the defense problems. A new coach might change this, but he would probably have to change some of the players too. I'm hoping for a good match and if the Aussies beat us then I hope they put it to China in the next round. Then I want a copy of everything they have done in the past 5 years sent to the CSA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachRich Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 Yes, last time I looked it was goals that counted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trillium Posted September 16, 2007 Author Share Posted September 16, 2007 quote:Originally posted by terpfan68 Ball possession as a stat can be misleading. Ghana had 54% to Canada's 46% close to Trillium's prediction for a loss and yet Canada wins the match 4 - 0. A more telling statistic is goal chances. Shots on goal, Shots wide, saves etc. For the Ghana match Canada had 14 shots on goal for Ghana's 3 and 9 wide to Ghana's 10. Most of their wide shots were from far out and although China and Brazil have players that can score from 25 yds with hard shots, Ghana was never a threat. For the upcoming match against Australia we have to "dance with the one who brought us" and this means playing to our big players upfront with balls that cause the defense problems. A new coach might change this, but he would probably have to change some of the players too. I'm hoping for a good match and if the Aussies beat us then I hope they put it to China in the next round. Then I want a copy of everything they have done in the past 5 years sent to the CSA. My point really is that if a quality side like Aus ..has the possession advantage they will not wiff the ball to an empty net from ...two yards out.. yes I know sometimes the soccer gods...let a team win with less possession ..but its usually because a keeper is weak..or a certain defender can be exposed and the coaching staff makes no...adjustments. That could be true of Ghana...but not so with Australia, score do count Coach Rich .. Auz 1 Norway 1 ....they are tied in group lead..we are the underdog ...who dug a hole... we have clearly not responded well as team in a simalar circumstance ...six weeks ago...one can only hope... that Ian Bridge is helping the players...realize they need to win the next one. I am not sure Even is able to rally the troops... we shall see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan68 Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 My point is that the players chosen for this team were chosen for a certain style of play that has been successful with women's soccer. You can't change horses in midstream. The worst coach imaginable whould be one who would change things NOW. Canada has gotten where it is (9th rank) with this current style. Would you be happier if we always had the favourable possession statistic and we were ranked 22nd in the world? The team's success is of course due to the players, but also due to the selection process, training and (dare I say it) style of play. When Evan leaves I am sure that there will be people on this site who will find something wrong with the style the new coach adopts. It might be a case of "Be careful what you wish for, you may get it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 quote: My point is that the players chosen for this team were chosen for a certain style of play that has been successful with women's soccer. No, that is not true at all. But all in good time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Kennett Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 I was able to watch the Canada-Ghana for only a few minutes after were up a couple of goals. It was tough to do. We scored our goals basically because our girls were bigger and could jump higher against the opposition - just one goal not from a header. I watched the Ghana girls pass the ball around with skill and purpose while I watched our women thump the ball up the field sometimes toward one of our forwards and other times toward nobody in particular. Yes, we won the match, but it was the same style of play that exhausted us against Norway 60 minutes in, and the Norwegians, by passing the ball around with skill and purpose, toyed with us and won the match. Watching that match was painful despite some good first half minutes by Canada. I do not know how the Australians play, but I do know that the famous Pellerud kick and run "direct play" (direct giveaway!) will not succeed against a well organized, big, fit defence, and allowing the opposition to possess the ball upwards of 55 to 60% will yield us few chances while giving so many to the opponents that Macleod will HAVE to have a superb game for us to have any chance at all. I hope that Canada wins, but as I ranted after we lost out at the last Olympic qualifying round to Mexico, Canada will not improve at womens' soccer until we learn to pass, possess, and pace ourselves. The US and Brazil have massacred us recently, and last week Norway was dominant, winning 2-1 only because Erin MacLeod kept the score down by making many stellar saves. I am hopeful, but not optimistic. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trillium Posted September 17, 2007 Author Share Posted September 17, 2007 quote:Originally posted by terpfan68 My point is that the players chosen for this team were chosen for a certain style of play that has been successful with women's soccer. You can't change horses in midstream. The worst coach imaginable whould be one who would change things NOW. Canada has gotten where it is (9th rank) with this current style. Would you be happier if we always had the favourable possession statistic and we were ranked 22nd in the world? The team's success is of course due to the players, but also due to the selection process, training and (dare I say it) style of play. When Evan leaves I am sure that there will be people on this site who will find something wrong with the style the new coach adopts. It might be a case of "Be careful what you wish for, you may get it." Actually I would be happier to have been 22 in the world five years ago playing a modern style of game..focused on possesion and use of high percentage successfull lateral and forward passes ..and indeed negative passing to probe and open up oppostions teams, that way heading into this World Cup we would have...two weapons a traditional long ball play ...when required and the ablity to play keep away ..and slow build ups when the game demands it due to opposition strength...heat...or other external player factors. To simply go with a failed technical approach to the game becuase it got us here...after eight years of Even is sad..he might well have said hey coming in this is what I see... we have so we will play long ball till my U19s and U17 mature to play a possesion style...and we will have a full mix of weapons. Instead we dont.... I fear we will pay for it by not getting out of the group stage and that will be major failure for Canadain futbol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trillium Posted September 17, 2007 Author Share Posted September 17, 2007 quote:Originally posted by terpfan68 My point is that the players chosen for this team were chosen for a certain style of play that has been successful with women's soccer. You can't change horses in midstream. The worst coach imaginable whould be one who would change things NOW. Canada has gotten where it is (9th rank) with this current style. Would you be happier if we always had the favourable possession statistic and we were ranked 22nd in the world? The team's success is of course due to the players, but also due to the selection process, training and (dare I say it) style of play. When Evan leaves I am sure that there will be people on this site who will find something wrong with the style the new coach adopts. It might be a case of "Be careful what you wish for, you may get it." Actually I would be happier to have been 22 in the world five years ago playing a modern style of game..focused on possesion and use of high percentage successfull lateral and forward passes ..and indeed negative passing to probe and open up oppostions teams, that way heading into this World Cup we would have...two weapons a traditional long ball play ...when required and the ablity to play keep away ..and slow build ups when the game demands it due to opposition strength...heat...or other external player factors. To simply go with a failed technical approach to the game becuase it got us here...after eight years of Even is sad..he might well have said hey coming in this is what I see... we have so we will play long ball till my U19s and U17 mature to play a possesion style...and we will have a full mix of weapons. Instead we dont.... I fear we will pay for it by not getting out of the group stage and that will be major failure for Canadain futbol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest speedmonk42 Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 I think it is really important we score more than they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 Not a big fan of the possession stat. It has it's uses but it can be one of the most misleading match facts out there. You've got to break it down further to find the little nuggets of information that are really useful and we just don't have that data available to us. One of the reasons I am cynical after a 4-nil drubbing of Ghana is the simple fact Canada's style was perfectly suited to playing Ghana. And the fact Ghana's keeper is crap. Hard to find encouraging signs of improvement from the match taking those two factors into account. I have no problem with playing direct football, but you have to recognize it has it's limits and you have to offer at least the threat of something more, something different otherwise you handi-cap yourself. I think we have a large core of ladies out there who've got the skills, eye, patience and craftiness to play the possession and movement sort of game but I doubt we'll see it now as we've seen precious little of it so far (but it's been there). It's a short tournie and Australia will be coming off Norway into a do or die 3rd match in 12 days in the heat and humidity of SE China. Who knows what they'll have left for Canada. Maybe we can pull it off yet but I still think Wednesday's result will have more to do with how the Aussie's play than how we do. And that's sad for a team which has been under the same coach for so many years and spent the last 6 months living together. Here's hoping Australia chokes! Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqing Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 I feel that it's better to fail now so that everyone realizes that we made the wrong technical approach. If we get a lucky win, Even will continue to brag about his achievement and we will waste another 8 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gold_football Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 I've watched Australia's games against Ghana and Norway and by far the most dangerous player has been Lisa DeVanna. She is an impact player who gets brought on after half-time and is very quick and scored the equaliser against Norway and almost scored the winner. If Canada can shut down her then Canada can progress through to the quarter finals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan68 Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 Interesting that Maging would root against Canada so that some higher purpose could be obtained. Now that's the kind of fan Canada needs. I hope our women don't read that posting before the match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 quote:Originally posted by terpfan68 Interesting that Maging would root against Canada so that some higher purpose could be obtained. Now that's the kind of fan Canada needs. I hope our women don't read that posting before the match. You must be new to this forum. During every tournament that Canada plays in I've seen posters on here make that argument. It's certainly a flawed way of thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan68 Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 Relatively new -- It will be two years in January. I got interested because my niece is on the under 20 team and I've coached for 18 years and all my five kids play. I guess more people are willing to complain than to praise. It is just human nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpg75 Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 quote:Originally posted by speedmonk42 I think it is really important we score more than they do. LOL! I think the team that scores the most is going to win IMO people are whining about the women's team because their style of play is so unappealing and is reminiscent of the Lenarduzzi days of WCQ98. Those were brutally dark days for Canadian soccer and we'd hoped we were moving beyond that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 I wish it was that simple. If you put your thinking hat on, you can figure out who maqing is, and they've been around a lot longer, and heaped a lot more praise on the WNT than anyone here. Some battles have to be lost to win wars. Churchill had to let the bombs drop on English cities to not let on to the Germans that enigma was cracked. By your logic, he's not a fan of England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cndsoccer Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 i don't think we can handle the aussie speed. i hope i'm wrong!!! get ready for that canadian punt and run style!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest speedmonk42 Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 We really ought to beat countries that don't have running water and electricity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Champ Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 Is that a New Orleans joke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.