Cheeta Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Saturday night it was the panic that disappointed me the most. Yeah we blew it and now we're losing but there's plenty of game left. No need to rush things. Put your thinking cap on, play some movements out there and see what you can get to work again. But no. Every opportunity became an exercise in rushing the ball down field. Great if that was working but it wasn't. Useless, and very disappointing. And heres the thing with time waisting. I'm actually a lot more forgiving of the guys who need an extra breath or two to regain their feet later in the match. I'm not saying I'm letting anyone off the hook for waisting time, or rolling around like a spoiled brat in a toy store making a fool of themself its just that as I'm getting older I can appreciate that after 75 minutes of running, tackling, being tackled and tumbling it does take a bit longer to feel that throbbing leave your knee long enough for you to regain your feet than it would in say the 1st half. (Actually, some nights I feel like that half time break does more harm than good for the old pegs. Legs just get it over with!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
An Observer Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 On the first goal, De Guzman went over to try trap the player Hutchinson had marked on the ball. By doing so, he left a gaping hole in the center of midfield. At the same time, Serioux had gone tight on his marker...hastings was to left him backing up hutchinson. Stalteri had to stay with Suazo by himself. As DeGuzman over committed, the guy marked by Hutchinson simply played the ball back to one Honduran player who then played it to the advancing Nunez (i think) who was then in miles of space in the center of the park to run directly at the defense. Lets be clear, the fault here lies directly with De Guzman for over committing and leaving tonnes of space in the center of the park with his defenders already tight on the 2 central forwards for Honduras. If instead of trying to trap the Honduran player he ran back to cover the space in the middle of the park, they never would have scored. Moreover, he compounded his error as he never ran back to try to cover. Hutchinson was right beside him when they tried to trap the guy on the wing. He ran back and almost stopped the cross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
An Observer Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 second goal is again deGuzman's fault. the ball is played up the left of our defense into the space that kluklowski has left to go forward. there is acre's of space between our midfield and our defense. when the ball is played up the wing, de guzman, hutchinson and nunez are all at about the same level around the midway line. hutchinson, even more central than deguzman, storms back to help hastings and does so in the box. deguzman trotts back. nunez races unmarked to the top of the 18 yard box. He receives the pass, stalteri then comes out to try to block but is not successful. Stalteri was properly in the box to stop any cross into the box with Serioux as there was a honduran player there. Now, if deguzman spots the danger with a Honduran having gone into the space Kluklowski had vacted and raced back to help Hastings (that would have freed up Hutch to stay more central). Or if he saw Hutch going to help Hastings and raced back to cover the following midfielder at the top of the 18 yard box, that would have prevented Nunez from receiving the pass. In both cases, DeGuzman showed a lack of awareness of the danger happening around him and where to cover to prevent the danger from materialising. In fairness to him, this may be because he is asked to do too much going forward. However, both of the honduran goals were easily preventable if he had acted to cover the danger properly. In the first case, by going back to cover the space in the middle of the park. In the second case, by hustling back to either help hastings or to cover any midfielders making late runs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OFI-MTL Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 When you play with that target man the attacking mids must make their runs on longballs played to Friend so he he can try and catch 1 with flicks..Dero looked tired and it was he who should have been subbed not Gerba. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toronto MB Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Observer, I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Almost like JDG is trying to do too much and close down balls he needs to let his team-mates worry about. I think we defiitely need to adapt his role vs Mexico. Let him be the central defensive force he is for Depor, and get Imhoff in there as well if he is fit. IMHO midfield should look like this: ------DeGuzman-----Imhoff--------- Radzinski-----Hutchinson---DeRosario Jam up the middle of the pitch with our two defensive rocks. Attack on the counter-attack with Friend doing his best to hold it up, and the pace of Radz, Atiba and DeRo going forward. I think we may need to alter the 4-5-1 to a 4-4-2, but it will work for now in a defensive mode against Mexico. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagum Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 canadian friends. be optimistic..... your team has the balls to win in Jamaica and Honduras, it was happend before. the team just has to play with passion. and why not a victory against Mexico is possible. that counts 9 points.. just win 1-0 in these 3 matches !!!!! and you are in !!!!!!! show CONCACAF and Mr Warner that you deserve to be in the hex. By the way, how ridiculus ist the gruop 3 of CONCACAF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted October 6, 2009 Author Share Posted October 6, 2009 It's funny to read this thread back one year later. Where did people get all that optimism from? The rants against Dale really seem outragous, when one considers that being the head coach of Canada's World Cup team is the most secure job in the world of football. Since Canada started to play in World Cup qualifying matches back in 1957, there has not been one coach that was fired by the CSA during a qualifying campaign. Considering we've only been successful once, in 1986, this has to be a record. Every other country in the World has fired their coach at least once in order to try a salvage a campaign. Would the CSA person in charge of firing the Canadian head coach ever do that? No way. The CSA doesn't care about qualifying and would rather pocket the money it would cost to replace a coach mid-term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Myself, I am mostly wondering why you didn't keep your promise to disappear for 4 years! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 When Grizzly and I agree on something, it's a big deal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redhat Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 <MOD ALERT> What's the point of restarting this thread? To make everyone pissed off for something a year ago? Another anti-CSA rant about last year? Then start a new thread about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.