2012 CONCACAF Women’s Olympic Qualifying 19-29 January 2012

[Unnamed Trialist]

Thanks, hoping to watch online on the Concacaf site. Hyped for this as we need the psychological boost and the Fifa ranking points too.

[Guest piltdownmanWC]

Games have started 13 minutes after the 'kick off time' so I expect around 513pm.

[Guest piltdownmanWC]

I will be heckling Leroux. I expect and have no problem with US fan's heckling Sesselman.

[lovetoplay]

That is the least true thing ever written. Rules don't define morality, rules attempt inaccurately to reflect morality. And, when the rules are set by a body as head-to-tail corrupt and decadently sleazy as FIFA, not even that.

Sepp Blatter is one of the last men on earth who'll tell me what's right and what's wrong.

If you read carefully, you will see that I never said the decision was right in my book. But we live in a country which allows dual citizenship, and which holds multiculturalism as one of its basic premises. You are not required to give up your culture, allegiances or even your citizenship to another country to live in Canada. You can't say her decision is immoral. Canada has given her the right to live in one or the other, to represent one or the other.

If you heckle Leroux, how can you justify cheering Sesselman. Shouldn't you be arguing for her exclusion (she is taking a real Canadian's spot) or judging her just as harshly for leaving her country? That's my point. You can't play on both sides. Explain to me how Sesselman's (or Noyola's, Brand's) decision is more moral than Leroux's?

[Drew Shaw]

I don't think that you can celebrate the American on our team and in the same breath heckle the Canadian on the US team.

If we celebrate Brand, Noyola and Sesselman , then how can we publicly heckle Leroux?

I wrote this above. Sesselman was NEVER approached by the US programme. She never PLAYED in the US programme. She had no chance of PLAYING in the US system. Therefore, her situation has absolutely nothing to do with LeRoux's situation. LeRoux played in the Canada system and was being groomed and trained to play for us at the senior level. That's why you can cheer for Sesselman and boo LeRoux. It's the same reason why you can cheer for Iginla, Crosby, and Luongo in a Canadian hockey jersey, and you don't mind if the Swiss team has two guys who happen to have been born in Canada (and you'd probably cheer for those guys against everyone EXCEPT Canada). This is a very simple concept. If people don't play for their country because they couldn't make the team, that's completely different from snubbing their team to play for a foreign country for mercenary reasons.

People like you are wrong about this situation because you simply don't understand it. Owen **********, LeRoux, Teal Bunbury - all these people have NOTHING IN COMMON with Marc Bircham or Lauren Sesselmen. When Owen ********** and Sydney LeRoux play for England and the US, Canadian fans HAVE lost something. When Lauren Sesselman plays for Canada, the US has lost absolutely nothing. This is an extremely simple concept.

"If the rules allow it . . . that doesn't give me the right to publicly judge."

Being a fan of the Canada team gives you the right to judge. I tire of people who think that "judgement" is tabboo. We all make thousands of judgements every day on thousands of things. It's people who LACK JUDGEMENT that you should be worried about - like those who don't possess enough judgement to figure out something as simple as this situation.

[Cheeta]

Weird debate. Kind of hard to get my head around what exactly seems to be the question. Quite simple no?

Canada=Good

USA=Bad

Bo, heckle, cheer and jeer appropriately. Leverage every angle you can and the more the better.

Sincerely yours

Cheeta "blitzed by kickoff" Bench

[Admin]

You just don't get it. Sesselman was NEVER approached by the US programme. She never PLAYED in the US programme. She had no chance of PLAYING in the US system. Therefore, her situation has absolutely nothing to do with LeRoux's situation.

People like you just don't get it, which is why your opinion on the topic is wrong. Owen **********, LeRoux, Teal Bunbury - all these people have NOTHING IN COMMON with Marc Bircham or Lauren Sesselmen. If you can't figure this out, then you are incapable of having a meaningful and intelligent opinion on the topic. US fans aren't "taking the high road": (a) they don't know, and (, just like Canadian hockey fans don't begrudge a guy from Mississauga playing for Switzerland, so too American soccer fans haven't lost anything when Sesselman plays for Canada. When Owen ********** and Sydney LeRoux play for England and the US, Canadian fans HAVE lost something. I don't understand how people can be so stupid that they cannot figure this out.

Yeah! Post of the week!

I have to memorize this nice succinct explanation.

[lovetoplay]

I wrote this above. Sesselman was NEVER approached by the US programme. She never PLAYED in the US programme. She had no chance of PLAYING in the US system. Therefore, her situation has absolutely nothing to do with LeRoux's situation. LeRoux played in the Canada system and was being groomed and trained to play for us at the senior level. That's why you can cheer for Sesselman and boo LeRoux. It's the same reason why you can cheer for Iginla, Crosby, and Luongo in a Canadian hockey jersey, and you don't mind if the Swiss team has two guys who happen to have been born in Canada (and you'd probably cheer for those guys against everyone EXCEPT Canada). This is a very simple concept. If people don't play for their country because they couldn't make the team, that's completely different from snubbing their team to play for a foreign country for mercenary reasons.

People like you are wrong about this situation because you simply don't understand it. Owen **********, LeRoux, Teal Bunbury - all these people have NOTHING IN COMMON with Marc Bircham or Lauren Sesselmen. When Owen ********** and Sydney LeRoux play for England and the US, Canadian fans HAVE lost something. When Lauren Sesselman plays for Canada, the US has lost absolutely nothing. This is an extremely simple concept.

"If the rules allow it . . . that doesn't give me the right to publicly judge."

Being a fan of the Canada team gives you the right to judge. I tire of people who think that "judgement" is tabboo. We all make thousands of judgements every day on thousands of things. It's people who LACK JUDGEMENT that you should be worried about - like those who don't possess enough judgement to figure out something as simple as this situation.

I respect your opinion and I am not an idiot, I get what you are saying.

I will no doubt get lambasted for saying this but, I think you are giving her too much power and boosting her already important ego by heckling her. Don't you think it makes our country look insecure to be booing a girl who has been gone for more than 5 years?

[Drew Shaw]

I will no doubt get lambasted for saying this but, I think you are giving her too much power and boosting her already important ego by heckling her. Don't you think it makes our country look insecure to be booing a girl who has been gone for more than 5 years?

No, but it does make our country look like a bunch of patsies and sychophants when people think it's hunky-doory for athletes to ditch it for the US (or England) when it's convenient for them to do so. This isn't about insecurity, it's about what we are losing compared to how strong we are in a certain sport. If the 200th best hockey player in Canada laces up for Switzerland because he has a Swiss mother, we have lost nothing. We'll probably all cheer for the guy against every national team except Canada. Clearly then this isn't about security or insecurity. If the 200th best soccer player in Canada suits up for Saint Lucia because his parents are from there, same thing. However, if we lose hockey players to the US, or to Russia, particularly if they was born and raised here, then there WILL be backlash from fans. That, again, is nothing to do with insecurity.

When several of the best soccer players in Canada suit up for England and the US, that's something that fans (ie "fanatics", not spectators) get angry about, because (a) they are hurting their national team when they do so, and ( people with an emotional attacment to Canada rightly feel this is a slap in the face to the country, because that's what it is. If you don't care that much about your country, or about Canada's national team, or the growth of soccer in Canada, then people playing for other countries isn't a loss for you. If that's the case, admit it, and stop pretending that you can't figure out why the issue is important to other people. If you do care about Canada, about Canada's national teams, or the growth of soccer in Canada, then people playing for other countries is a loss for you, so you will be disappointed or angry about it. It's a zero-sum game. Good Canadians playing for Canada improves Canadian soccer at all levels. Good Canadians playing for other countries has several negative effects, not least the effect it has on encouraging other young people to make the same choice. This isn't about people with some tenuous links to Canada, it's about people born and raised here, who use "international sport" as a mercenary way to further their careers. Using this type of sport for mercenary reasons is insulting to those of us who have an emotional attachment to sport, the teams we support, and our country. If you don't have an emotional attachment to these things, that's fine; but you won't understand the emotions of those of us who do (and I also therefore wonder why you are even on this web site).

Spectators watch Barca, Man Utd, Brazil, and whoever else is "winning". I'm a spectator too. I watch the World Cup, the Euros, and the Champions League for the quality of the football, since I have no emotional stake in who wins in those events. We're all spectators sometimes, because we love the sport. But some of us are also fans. Fans watch and support the team they love for emotional reasons through thick and thin. Fans feel hurt when their countrymen reject the national team for mercenary reasons.

"I get what you are saying."

Clearly you don't, or it wouldn't perplex you so much. You're a SPECTATOR. Spectators watch sport to admire and appreciate the sporting aspect of it. They either don't have an emotional attachment to various teams, or it's a minor aspect to sport for them. Such people wear their Man Utd shirts, follow certain players more than they follow certain teams, poo-poo the MLS, think Canadian kids should play for other national teams because those teams are better for their development and pocket book, etc. I understand their point of view, because they're also not overly emotionally attached to their country and community, for various reasons (they've lived in a lot of places, or just moved there, or other reasons). They don't really "get" the point of international competition, which isn't about entertainment (that's what club sport is for). Such people frequently support club teams that are NOT local.

Those who boo LeRoux and ********** are FANS. They follow certain teams for emotional reasons, not for entertainment reasons. They see their national team as an extension of their communities, nations, and their identities. They want to see good football, of course: but they want to see THEIR team doing it. They don't pick their teams - their teams "pick them". Such people usually support teams that are local. They don't "appreciate" their favourite teams, they "love" them as an extension of their community or their country. Their interest in football has an important social and emotional component.

[AlanDouglas]

as a youth coach, I have given a lot of my time, just like hundreds of people within Canadian soccer did in developing LeRoux to the point where she made the Canada programme, and others have paid for the facilities she used. If she wanted to play only for the US, then why did she participate in and use the Canada national team programme?

Of all the girls so coached though, surely there must be others who chose a different path than playing for Canada. How many used soccer as a means of developing character and for personal growth? How many used it as a means of obtaining NCAA scholarships so they could get a good education and embark on a career outside of soccer? My guess is, it would be the vast majority. Aren't they just as guilty of taking advantage of the system? Why aren't they reviled as traitors to Canadian soccer?

LeRoux at least is still devoting her energies to growing the game in North America, which has spinoff benefits to soccer here. Can you say the same of somebody who left soccer to go into medicine or law or insurance or advertising or finance? Why does this ridiculous sense of entitlement that these girls owe Canadian soccer their lives only seem to apply to people like LeRoux?

[lovetoplay]

No, but it does make our country look like a bunch of patsies and sychophants when people think it's hunky-doory for athletes to ditch it for the US (or England) when it's convenient for them to do so. This isn't about insecurity, it's about what we are losing compared to how strong we are in a certain sport. If the 200th best hockey player in Canada laces up for Switzerland because he has a Swiss mother, we have lost nothing. We'll probably all cheer for the guy against every national team except Canada. Clearly then this isn't about security or insecurity. If the 200th best soccer player in Canada suits up for Saint Lucia because his parents are from there, same thing. However, if we lose hockey players to the US, or to Russia, particularly if they was born and raised here, then there WILL be backlash from fans. That, again, is nothing to do with insecurity.

When several of the best soccer players in Canada suit up for England and the US, that's something that fans (ie "fanatics", not spectators) get angry about, because (a) they are hurting their national team when they do so, and ( people with an emotional attacment to Canada rightly feel this is a slap in the face to the country, because that's what it is. If you don't care that much about your country, or about Canada's national team, or the growth of soccer in Canada, then people playing for other countries isn't a loss for you. If that's the case, admit it, and stop pretending that you can't figure out why the issue is important to other people. If you do care about Canada, about Canada's national teams, or the growth of soccer in Canada, then people playing for other countries is a loss for you, so you will be disappointed or angry about it. It's a zero-sum game. Good Canadians playing for Canada improves Canadian soccer at all levels. Good Canadians playing for other countries has several negative effects, not least the effect it has on encouraging other young people to make the same choice. This isn't about people with some tenuous links to Canada, it's about people born and raised here, who use "international sport" as a mercenary way to further their careers. Using this type of sport for mercenary reasons is insulting to those of us who have an emotional attachment to sport, the teams we support, and our country. If you don't have an emotional attachment to these things, that's fine; but you won't understand the emotions of those of us who do (and I also therefore wonder why you are even on this web site).

Spectators watch Barca, Man Utd, Brazil, and whoever else is "winning". I'm a spectator too. I watch the World Cup, the Euros, and the Champions League for the quality of the football, since I have no emotional stake in who wins in those events. We're all spectators sometimes, because we love the sport. But some of us are also fans. Fans watch and support the team they love for emotional reasons through thick and thin. Fans feel hurt when their countrymen reject the national team for mercenary reasons.

"I get what you are saying."

Clearly you don't, or it wouldn't perplex you so much. You're a SPECTATOR. Spectators watch sport to admire and appreciate the sporting aspect of it. They either don't have an emotional attachment to various teams, or it's a minor aspect to sport for them. Such people wear their Man Utd shirts, follow certain players more than they follow certain teams, poo-poo the MLS, think Canadian kids should play for other national teams because those teams are better for their development and pocket book, etc. I understand their point of view, because they're also not overly emotionally attached to their country and community, for various reasons (they've lived in a lot of places, or just moved there, or other reasons). They don't really "get" the point of international competition, which isn't about entertainment (that's what club sport is for). Such people frequently support club teams that are NOT local.

Those who boo LeRoux and ********** are FANS. They follow certain teams for emotional reasons, not for entertainment reasons. They see their national team as an extension of their communities, nations, and their identities. They want to see good football, of course: but they want to see THEIR team doing it. They don't pick their teams - their teams "pick them". Such people usually support teams that are local. They don't "appreciate" their favourite teams, they "love" them as an extension of their community or their country. Their interest in football has an important social and emotional component.

There is also a time to let things go and I have. I am no more a spectator no less a supporter than you.

[hectorj]

But we live in a country which allows dual citizenship, and which holds multiculturalism as one of its basic

premises. You are not required to give up your culture, allegiances or even your citizenship to another country to live in Canada. You can't

say her decision is immoral.

Tell that to the Shafia family. They had the misguided notion not only that their culture was more important than their daughters' life, but also that normally weak-kneed Canadian justice system wouldn't do anything about it . Ah, but this is for another post in the off topic forum.

Would Sesselman make the American team? Would have she been called up? No. That is the crucial issue. If a player has been capped at

any age, they should be allowed to change. I can predict your next response and yes, we have benefitted from this situation, but it

doesn't make it right or something that FIFA should tolerate.

[mtlfan]

Today's odds @bet 365

Can 5.25 Draw 4.33 USA 1.44

Leroux getting booed 1.0000000000000000000001 to 1

[Grizzly]

For those without Sportsnet, Concacaf tv is streaming the game live, http://www.concacaftv.premiumtv.co.uk/page/Home/0,,12907,00.html You have to register with them to watch it but registration is free

[Soccerpro]

Canada's right back gets the ball on the right side of fringe of the attacking third, looks up, no one was available, instead of trying to keep possession by going backwards, or wait for someone to show, with no American players anywhere near her she boots a weak ball in the middle, well outside the American box, to no one in particular and then the U.S shortly goes down to the Canadian end and scores. The decision making on that play was like watching a women's soccer game in the 80's.

[forster01]

Gale has been poor so far lack of pace

[Soccerpro]

Gale has been poor so far lack of pace

Yes.

[Soccerpro]

Canada's right back gets the ball on the right side of fringe of the attacking third, looks up, no one was available, instead of trying to keep possession by going backwards, or wait for someone to show, with no American players anywhere near her she boots a weak ball in the middle, well outside the American box, to no one in particular and then the U.S shortly goes down to the Canadian end and scores. The decision making on that play was like watching a women's soccer game in the 80's.

An American player finds herself in the same situation at minute 28', she instead looks to the middle and passes to a team mate who takes the ball, hits the the post with a long short, U.S scores on the rebound.

[canfan22]

Has anyone else been unimpressed by Kyle the entire tournament? ...and why isn't Tancredi playing?

[adrenaline11]

Canada's right back gets the ball on the right side of fringe of the attacking third, looks up, no one was available, instead of trying to keep possession by going backwards, or wait for someone to show, with no American players anywhere near her she boots a weak ball in the middle, well outside the American box, to no one in particular and then the U.S shortly goes down to the Canadian end and scores. The decision making on that play was like watching a women's soccer game in the 80's.

Seriously, this game has only been slightly less painful to watch than the France game because we've had some decent chances at goal. But I agree, we've reverted back to an impatient, route one style tonight. There's been a lot of physical play but a lot of diving on our part as well which I'm not too proud to see.

[LarsHirsch_fan]

If i wanted to watch world class football I guess I could have just bypassed this game... But God!

[1996]

Someone remind me how did Japan beat the US and win the World Cup last summer, I mean I look at this US team and they look so strong,however, if I remember corectly Japan played a very good posession game of soccer and minimized the times balls were waisted.

[guppy]

I chuckled a little when they said 'it may be a little reality check for Canada'.. lol .. they've had a reality checks already. Who needs their reality checked still.. come on.

[Free kick]

Well done. Congrats to the women. Qualifying was the objective and that was met. As far as the game, the americans were better but the scoreline flattered them, they werent 4-0 better. They were opportunistic and clinicial but contrary to the naive announcers such as Gerry D and craig mcewen kept saying, the reason they were better has nothing to do with speed, it has everything to do with first and second touches which allows proper ball controll hich in turns creates space, rapid ball movement and creates good build ups. Buildups creates goals. Good first and second touches is how you sustain possession. And it explains why the team that doesnt have them looks always under pressure and hurried and the team with good touches allways seems to have plenty time and space. Its not becasuse your fast, good ball controll and touches make you look fast. You can just say we want to play better ball possession, everybody wants to do that. The old addage is that the ball moves faster than any player can.

Sustaining possession is about good ball controll which comes from first and second touches. There are good players that have pace/speed but thats not why they good. If that was the case, then you would see a lot of sprinters in soccer. Atheticism is more and more important but this over emphasis of athleticism over basis soccer skills sends the wrong message.

[The Beaver]

Well done. Congrats to the women. Qualifying was the objective and that was met. As far as the game, the americans were better but the scoreline flattered them, they werent 4-0 better. They were opportunistic and clinicial but contrary to the naive announcers such as Gerry D and craig mcewen kept saying, the reason they were better has nothing to do with speed, it has everything to do with first and second touches which allows proper ball controll hich in turns creates space, rapid ball movement and creates good build ups. Buildups creates goals. Good first and second touches is how you sustain possession. And it explains why the team that doesnt have them looks always under pressure and hurried and the team with good touches allways seems to have plenty time and space. Its not becasuse your fast, good ball controll and touches make you look fast. You can just say we want to play better ball possession, everybody wants to do that. The old addage is that the ball moves faster than any player can.

Sustaining possession is about good ball controll which comes from first and second touches. There are good players that have pace/speed but thats not why they good. If that was the case, then you would see a lot of sprinters in soccer. Atheticism is more and more important but this over emphasis of athleticism over basis soccer skills sends the wrong message.

Yes, but Morgan's speed exposed our back four--Woller and Chapman--at least twice, so you cannot deny that speed played something of a role tonight. But the Americans were technically better, they moved the ball better, they held the ball in wide positions and stretched the field, and as a result we chased the ball a lot. We were too slow in moving the ball at times, and they made us pay for it. At other times we moved the ball fairly well, nice one and two touch soccer, but we were inconsistent and the Americans defend with high energy--as always.

Quick thoughts: I did not like Herdman playing Sinclair up front with Julien. Too easy for the Yanks to mark her out of the game, and the only way she'd be successful up front is if she is getting fantastic service, which she did not get. Better to bring her into the midfield and get the ball to her feet and let her spread the field.

Not convinced Julien has a lot to offer, sadly. Tancredi links up nicely with Sinclair, but Julien is a less talented version of Tancredi, and we do not need two tanks attacking.

Scott was amazing. Great ball-winner, great ball control, amazing cardio: and she will only grow and grow as she learns the game. Fantastic.

Not convinced we're remotely close to having a world class back line, with the exception of Chapman. Herdman needs to solve the back line. Woller is too slow. Sessleman is okay, but what is with the stupid bush league arm fakes? I love Wilkinson's pace and willingness to battle, but her passing is atrocious. Gayle could be good, but I am not sure she has any self confidence.

Mathieson is so important to this team.

I love Schmidt, but she mostly seemed out of sorts this entire tournament. Great ball-winner, strong on the ball when she has it. Her fitness did not seem great, but perhaps she ran too much tonight. Kyle is a battler, but we need players who can make things happen, who can string passes together etc.

I like Parker, but she seemed physically overmatched all night long. She's a wisp of a thing, but maybe she needs to hit the gym.

Like I said early in the tournament, we are four or five players shy of being a side that can compete with the big teams. I do not blame our players or Herdman, of course. We need more money so that our women's teams can train more and develop young players etc. The American program is a rich one, and we saw the result of that investment tonight.