WFP Piece

[Guest Ed]

I see the BC soccer web has a piece from the WFP on the women's WC. Tim Grainey, in China, headline : "Humbled Canadians Put in a Good Performance".

Now, to each his own, however, I do find these remarks:

"The notion that Charmaine Hooper, Christine Latham and Sharolta Nonen's absence would destroy any hope this team had of competing, were put to rest... in a casket. The trio's walkout in 2005 before an exhibition with China, in Newfoundland, proved their last contribution, to-date! Recently, a Canadian sport arbitor exhonerated Pellerud and his staff of any blame. Of course, the trio were not invited to China and any difference they would have made would probably have been negative and disruptive."

to be totally unfounded.

The Cdns reached the semi-finals last time round in the USA and here are some of the stats:

QR

GER 4 - CAN 1 - Sinclair scores but Canada is beaten soundly. Hooper and Nonen each 90' at the back, Latham 90' up front.

CAN 3 - ARG 0 - Latham scores 2 in her 83'. Hooper converts a PK for the 3rd as she and Nonen each go 90' at the back.

CAN 3 - JPN 1 - Latham opens the scoring, subbed out 60' in. Nonen and Hooper 90' at the back.

QF

CAN 1 - CHN 0 - Hooper scored 7' in. Latham 73', Nonen and Hooper usual 90' at the back.

SF

CAN 1 - SWD 2 - Lang opens the scoring mid 2nd half. Both goals from Sweden after Latham is subbed out at 73'. Hooper and Nonen 90' each.

3RD PLACE

USA 3 - CAN 1 - Hooper, Latham and Nonen 90' each.

Now given that these players were a huge part of our 3rd place finish (one could argue without Latham we may not have advanced from the QR), I find Mr Grainey's blithe 'put to rest .. in a casket' remark to be absurd to say the least.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

I think the person who really deserves a dig is the new captain. She may be a great player, but all her talk against these three was gratuitous, and since she failed to lead the team where others, namely those three, were able to, as great, feisty leaders, maybe she should retract.

Sinclair would rather have a nice little closed off isolated homey set-up where the team fools itself into thinking it is united when in fact it is united to play poorly under her leadership, than have some real guts and experience out there taking the team to new heights.

For me, Sinclair's complicity with the coach and the whole program, to the point of pandering to those running things, unlike Hooper's more edgy, critical stance, which was always in defence of going further, pushing more, is a big mark against her. Is Sinclair going to step down as team captain now or do we have to put up with her lack of leadership until she finally realizes that the gutsy, feisty approach is better than the sweet and loyal college girl line?

[The Ref]

No worries. WFP has in the past disrespected women soccer and specially Hooper. I give no credence to anything coming out of WFP.

[Richard]

For info, the author of the piece contributed to WFP, Tim Grainey, is an American to the best of my knowledge.

[Vic]

"A Grainey Day in the Americas

Tim Grainey

Carson, CA, Nov. 22, 2006

SHOW ME THE MONEY, GOALS!

Had Charmaine Hooper not been such a delusional, whiney crap-hole, money-hungry, ego-maniac, she may have been at the Sunday Final, and the 2007 World Cup. But she is and she won't be, and Nov. 22, a squad far more talented than Hooper ever was, demonstrated that she won't be missed at all on the field. Ironically, her self-destructive nature appears to be perfectly suited for a position with the CSA."

Real Canadian fan.

[Cheeta]

Rant Alert

Now, now. The lasses were about 10 seconds away from advancing (but) getting handed their collective asses by Brazil. But so what? That's football.

That being said, I think Hooper's grit and experince was missed. Missed in spades. And not just against Auz.

Doesn't matter if in my assessment I'm right or wrong, I think everyone can agree that the reasons for Canada's failure to advance can be broken down into one of three areas;

Lack of, or the wrong sort of, preparation.

Squad selection.

On-field strategy.

Two of those three areas are directly the domain of Even Pellerud. The third is at least partially his responsibility.

Think everyone knows I've been a doubter of the "residency program" from day 1. It was a generous and well meaning program but all the same a program that was by it's very nature biased against any veteran player who was not based on the Left Coast.

In the amateur world which is womens football, anybody who couldn't abandon their life to join this residency program had to be written off, in the view of the WNT manager, for the greater good.

Whether this was an intelligent judgment or not we'll never know. But the fact of the matter remains a Latham, Nonen, Hooperless WNT failed</u> to duplicate past achievments.

So...what can we draw from this lesson?

When it comes to womens football either we're not "keeping up" or we're doing something wrong at the WWC. Gawd, I hope it's the later. But if it is, what is it that we're doing wrong and how do we correct it so that it's only temporary?

Latham, Nonen, and Hooper whatever they were up to now aren't part of the problem. Not one of them had anything to do with our failure to advance out of the group stage. Not a one. But they, or what they represent in the big scheme of things, may be part of the solution.

[Richard]

Charmaine Hooper is 39 years old, there is no way she could sustain a spot on the team as a player as she approaches her 40th birthday and she has no coaching certification per her own website. What role do you see her playing now with the WNT even if the bad taste left in the mouths of the CSA and many Canadian fans after the behavioural issues of the 'Hooper Trio' were to subside somehow?

[Guest Ed]

The Cdn team failed miserably in China. Calling it a good performance and to then go on and say that any notion that their absence would affect the team's performance was 'destroyed' is a farcical statement, hardly backed up by any facts. BTW, Latham led her team in scoring again this year.

[Vic]

What left a bad taste in the mouth of the CSA? Ending her career? The only question is what would get the bad taste out of HER mouth.

This thread began about Sinclair. Anyone who looks back at her WNT performance in big games will see a very different story than the one in the papers. It's pretty astounding actually.

While watching the AUS game I remember being surprised by the captain's goal celebrations in the last few minutes. But in looking back, they pretty much define them... Sinclair running away from everyone and Salisbury turning back into her teammates.

[loyola]

quote:Originally posted by Vic

What left a bad taste in the mouth of the CSA? Ending her career? The only question is what would get the bad taste out of HER mouth.

This thread began about Sinclair. Anyone who looks back at her WNT performance in big games will see a very different story than the one in the papers. It's pretty astounding actually.

While watching the AUS game I remember being surprised by the captain's goal celebrations in the last few minutes. But in looking back, they pretty much define them... Sinclair running away from everyone and Salisbury turning back into her teammates.

In her first 2 WC,at age 27 and 31, Hooper scored 2 goals in 4-1 and 7-1 defeats.

In her first 2 WC, at age 20 and 24, Sinclair has scored 4 goals, all of them in important games for Canada. Give Sinclair a break please.

[loyola]

Vic, please tell me how many important goals Hooper had at Sinclair's age against decent opposition....

http://www.canadasoccer.com/eng/nationals/_profile.asp?playerid=330&sub=3

[Guest Ed]

What's your point Loyola? CH, at age 35, she scored two very important goals, one of which put us into the semis.

Hooper's Troopers. You heard it here first, rather second, as I posted the first a couple of days ago.

Note that I (not speaking for Jeffrey or Vic) have nothing against Sinclair. Her comments about Charmaine and the others are totally understood, having lived in a dorm with like minded types all year. I think she is a fine player.

My issue is with the column posted at BCSOCCERWEB by the Cdn soccer expert Mister Grainey. He obviously likes the headlines but his writing doesn't bear up to examination of the facts.

[loyola]

quote:Originally posted by Ed

What's your point Loyola? CH, at age 35, she scored two very important goals, one of which put us into the semis.

Hooper's Troopers. You heard it here first, rather second, as I posted the first a couple of days ago.

Note that I (not speaking for Jeffrey or Vic) have nothing against Sinclair. Her comments about Charmaine and the others are totally understood, having lived in a dorm with like minded types all year. I think she is a fine player.

My issue is with the column posted at BCSOCCERWEB by the Cdn soccer expert Mister Grainey. He obviously likes the headlines but his writing doesn't bear up to examination of the facts.

My point is that Sinclair is still young and has already done a lot more in her career than Hooper at the same age.

Charmaine is still a great player but Sinclair is years ahead of Charmaine at the same age.

As for the article, nobody knows what would've happen if the 3 players would've been reinstated. It's a 50/50 situation, it might've been chaos with team chemistry problems or the team get over it and play better or similar to what they did.

[Guest Ed]

BTW, if you want to pull stats out of your arse, the only one that really matters is team success and the team was more successful in 2003 than they were in 2007. Hooper, Latham and Nonen were key members of the successful team in 2003. End of story.

[loyola]

quote:Originally posted by Ed

BTW, if you want to pull stats out of your arse, the only one that really matters is team success and the team was more successful in 2003 than they were in 2007. Hooper, Latham and Nonen were key members of the successful team in 2003. End of story.

I'm questioning Vic comments about Sinclair, what's the matter with you??? I responded to him by citing some stats from 2 of Canada best players in order to show that Sinclair has done really well at a very young age.

Why are you taking issue with this? This is far from being a shot at Hooper, it's more a defense for Sinclair.

Like I said, nobody knows how it would've turned out with those 3 back in the squad.

[Vic]

Hey loyola. No sweat by me. It's all good. I never said Sinclair wasn't a good player! I said I've read the press for the past few years and there's a bit of a disconnect between them and reality. That's it. Everytime we had an elmination WC game, Olympic qualifier, whatever, she never scored a big goal or won a game. There never was much point in harping on it, and especially before the tournament, so I backed off out of respect... but since it's over, and someone brought it up, I added my two cents.

And since you're quoting stats.. here are Sinclair's big games since joining the WNT, playing 90 minutes in each as a striker:

2000 Gold Cup v. USA SF - 0

2002 Gold Cup v. Mexico SF - 0

2002 Gold Cup v. USA F - 0

2003 WC v. China QF - 0

2003 WC v. Sweden SF - 0

2004 Olympic Qualifier v. Mexico - 0

2006 Peace Queen v. USA F - 0

2006 Gold Cup v. USA F - 0

2007 WWC v. Australia - 1

The truth is she's played up front for 7 years and never delivered the goods in a big game. Will she one day - of course, that and more. But I'm going to hold on until she actually does something to congratulate her. If you don't like that, sorry.

Funny how everything, every topic everywhere here, always goes back to Charmaine Hooper.

[Richard]

quote:Originally posted by Ed

BTW, if you want to pull stats out of your arse, the only one that really matters is team success and the team was more successful in 2003 than they were in 2007. Hooper, Latham and Nonen were key members of the successful team in 2003. End of story.

So by your logic the only differentiator between the performance of and results achived by the teams at the last WC and this WC is the three players you mention - give me a break!

[Guest Ed]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

So by your logic the only differentiator between the performance of and results achived by the teams at the last WC and this WC is the three players you mention - give me a break!

I was responding to Loyola's pulling out Sinclair's goal scoring record vs Hooper's, which add nothing. Hooper never got to a World Cup until she was getting on a bit as:

1. there were no world cups when she was Sinclair's age.

2. The first only had one CONCACAF entry.

But you do raise an interesting point. I certainly DO NOT believe that those 3 players made ALL the differnece, but I certainly DO believe that they would have made a difference. Latham is a bull and savvy; the large Cdn lady forward Pellerud used fits the first description but not the 2nd. Nonen is a proven defender at that level. Hooper's glare from the bench would have been enough to get some of those younger girls going when they thought they were all in.

I do not believe the only differentiator between those

[Richard]

Different players, different chemistry every time. Not always for the good. We will never know who was right on this one. I think however, including the Hooper three for this WC under the circumstances would have been more destructive than constructive and that Pellerud made the right decision. Furthermore Hooper is too old to make a meaningful contribution on the field as a striker now, even Andrea Neil who is of an age only played a token few minutes. Others will obviously disagree and that's their right. None of it makes any difference after the fact though and arguing about it is really just a waste of time and energy.

[Vic]

Richard's right. No one will ever know. About the only thing we know for certain is that all we heard from last Summer to this Spring was about excellence and improvement, and since then all we were delivered has been a heaping load of mediocrity on the field and in results (6-2, 7-0, losing to US teenagers, coming home early from China).

It's all a complete cockup and mess. And I really hope there's someone intelligent and giving out there who cares enough to find a way to put some integrity, leadership and direction back into the program. Because from the fiasco to our results, we've lost a lot of respect on the world stage. And when I think of all the great people and players, and the time they spend involved in feeding this program, that really pisses me off.

[Vic]

Richard's right. No one will ever know. About the only thing we know for certain is that all we heard from last Summer to this Spring was about excellence and improvement, and since then all we were delivered has been a heaping load of mediocrity on the field and in results (6-2, 7-0, losing to US teenagers, coming home early from China).

It's all a complete cockup and mess. And I really hope there's someone intelligent and giving out there who cares enough to find a way to put some integrity, leadership and direction back into the program. Because from the fiasco to our results, we've lost a lot of respect on the world stage. And when I think of all the great people and players, and the time they spend involved in feeding this program, that really pisses me off.

[Richard]

And this on top of the recent dismal sub-par performance of the U-20 men and apparently no money allocated by the CSA for U-20 women's team development.