Should Christine Sinclair retire from the CWNT?

[Vic]

He simply doesn't understand women's soccer. But then so few people do.

A positive capable player is worth so much to a team. 11 of those and you win a World Cup. Wilkinson is a good case in point. Few people can comprehend that. Theyb would rather vote for Marta as the player of the year when she (and not Desiree Scott) was the great destroyer.

That's not just coaching either, it's the essence of Canadians and Canadian culture. Something omnipotent in women's soccer and again something few people can understand.

[Robert]

Sinclair's at the World Cup Finals:

20-09-2003  Canada - Germany 1-4 (1 goal)

24-09-2003  Canada - Argentina 3-0

27-09-2003  Canada - Japan 3-1 (1 goal)

02-10-2003  Canada - China 1-0

05-10-2003  Canada - Sweden 1-2

11-10-2003  Canada - U.S.A. 1-3 (1 goal)

12-09-2007  Canada - Norway 1-2

15-09-2007  Canada - Ghana 4-0 (2 goals)

20-09-2007  Canada - Australia 2-2 (1 goal)

26-06-2011  Canada - Germany 1-2 (1 goal)

30-06-2011  Canada - France 0-4

05-07-2011  Canada - Nigeria 0-1

06-06-2015  Canada - China 1-0 (1 goal)

11-06-2015  Canada - New Zealand 0-0

15-06-2015  Canada - Netherlands 1-1

21-06-2015  Canada - Switzerland 1-0

27-06-2015  Canada - England 1-2 (1 goal)

 

[Robert]

Of course, it was the year preceding Christine's debut at the Women's World Cup Finals that she really exploded onto the international stage during the 2002 U-19 World Cup:

18-08-2002  Canada - Denmark 3-2 (1 goal)

20-08-2002  Canada - Japan 4-0 (2 goals)

22-08-2002  Canada - Nigeria 2-0 (2 goals)

25-08-2002  Canada - England 6-2 (5 goals)

29-08-2002  Canada - Brazil 1-1 (4-3 pen.)

01-09-2002  Canada - U.S.A. 0-1 (a.e.t.)

[Robert]

By comparison, if we take a trip down memory-lane to see how the Canadian Women's National Team fared at the FIFA World Cup Finals prior to the Christine Sinclair era, the results were as follows:

Canada failed to qualify for the inaugural FIFA Women's World Cup that was hosted by China in 1991.

06-06-1995  Canada - England 2-3

08-06-1995  Canada - Nigeria 3-3

10-06-1995  Canada - Norway 0-7

19-06-1999  Canada - Japan 1-1

23-06-1999  Canada - Norway 1-7

26-06-1999  Canada - Russia 1-4

[Robert]

Canada's record at FIFA World Cup Finals without Christine Sinclair in the line-up:

6 matches played

0 matches won

2 matches drawn

4 matches lost

8 goals scored

25 goals conceded

Canada's record at FIFA World Cup Finals with Christine Sinclair in the line-up:

17 matches played

6 matches won

3 matches drawn

8 matches lost

22 goals scored

24 goals conceded

[Robert]

Christine Sinclair is on the verge of becoming the all-time leading international goal scorer. The Canadian Women's National Team has never won a World Cup Final match without her in the line-up. In the last nine home internationals before her Women's World Cup Final debut the Canadian women drew the following attendances:

1)  2002-11-03  Victoria, BC  CANADA - COSTA RICA - 3,256

2)  2002-11-01  Victoria, BC  CANADA - JAMAICA - 1,834

3)  2002-10-30  Victoria, BC  CANADA - HAITI - 1,531

4)  2002-09-28  Victoria, BC  CANADA - AUSTRALIA - 2,656

5)  2002-09-26  Burnaby, BC  CANADA - AUSTRALIA - 2,653

6)  2002-07-17  Etobicoke, ON  CANADA - NORWAY - 4,000

7)  2001-06-30  Toronto, ON  CANADA - U.S.A. - 9,023

8) 1999-06-12  Toronto, ON - CANADA - AUSTRALIA - 4,639

9) 1999-06-09  Etobicoke, ON - CANADA - AUSTRALIA - 3,486

Well, how times have changed, EH? The Canadian Women's National Team since the arrival of Christine Sinclair regularly draws crowds of 50,000 at BC Place, Vancouver, BC, which has done wonders for the CSA's annual bottom line, EH?

Now considering that this will more than likely be Christine's World Cup Final swan-song, wouldn't it be appropriate if the CSA showed its appreciation for everything that Canada's all-time greatest soccer star (women or men) has done for the beautiful game in this country, by arranging a number of home internationals in the 6 months leading up to France 2019, to give SINC the best possible chance of retiring as a WORLD CHAMPION, EH?

 

 

 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Robert

[Vic]

Sinclair's only 35, age shouldn't be an issue. At that age Charmaine Hooper was on the World All-Star team, was voted to the World Cup Best-11 and scored the winner in the quarter against Japan to put us in the semi's. And then played another three years for Canada.

And really, what are our alternatives? After Sinclair the drop is quite significant.  Whereas comparatively the Dutch attack with players like Viviene Miedema and Lieke Martens, both recognized as world class already and just in their early-to-mid 20s.

Because of the vacuum Sinclair can probably start for Canada for another 3-5 years, while in countries like the Netherlands she''s already off the bench late.  That's why although we were in Pool A and the Dutch in Pool B in the draw, they're 10-1 to win it and we're 34-1. 

[rkomar]

I had been going to the Canada matches in Vancouver for a while, and they almost always only had the lower bowl open.  So, that's under 25,000 per game.  The stands were mostly full for each game, but I doubt they would have regularly filled the upper bowl, as well.  Still, 25,000 is a lot better than the old numbers.

[rkomar]

2 minutes ago, Vic said:

Because of the vacuum Sinclair can probably start for Canada for another 3-5 years, while in countries like the Netherlands she''s already off the bench late.  That's why although we were in Pool A and the Dutch in Pool B in the draw, they're 10-1 to win it and we're 34-1. 

I liken the betting odds to the Top 100 players list.  We don't get a lot of respect or even notice out there by everyone else, but that doesn't mean that they are right about it.  But you're right about the vacuum after Sinclair; especially when it comes to scoring with headers.  My answer to "Should Sinclair retire?" has always been "Are the rest of the forwards better than she is?", and so far the answer is a resounding No!

[BearcatSA]

On ‎12‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 9:24 AM, red card said:

It is a bit jarring but only Ashley Lawrence would have an argument to be on the list. Our sum of the parts has been better than our individual parts. Credit goes to Herdman.

And this isn't one author's view but the top 100 is based on votes by players, coaches and journalists from around the world - including two Canadian journos. 

Lawrence is notable omission for me. 

[Vic]

Agree on the top 100, anyone and everyone with a web page has done a top 100 and they range from ridiculous to random.

Even the ones by quality organizations like the Guardian (who I think have two Canadians and a half dozen Dutch) are half-baked. 

But the odds, that stuffs legitimate and backed up by real money. It's not someone and their three friends coming up with something. It moves with money played and like all free markets tends to settle in balance.

[Robert]

2 hours ago, Vic said:

Agree on the top 100, anyone and everyone with a web page has done a top 100 and they range from ridiculous to random.

Even the ones by quality organizations like the Guardian (who I think have two Canadians and a half dozen Dutch) are half-baked. 

But the odds, that stuffs legitimate and backed up by real money. It's not someone and their three friends coming up with something. It moves with money played and like all free markets tends to settle in balance.

Never mind coming up with a top 100 list, cause honestly, I can't even name 100 women soccer players. However, I do agree with you on the odds part. Like what was the longest shot to ever win the FIFA Women's or Men's World Cup? Japan in 2011? Germany in 1954? The odds-makers almost almost have the winner in their top four or five picks.

WOMEN

3	United States	(1991, 1999, 2015)
2	Germany	(2003, 2007)
1	Norway	(1995)
1	Japan	(2011)

MEN

5  Brazil 1958, 1962, 1970, 1994, 2002

4  Italy 1934, 1938, 1982, 2006

4  Germany 1954, 1974, 1990, 2014

2  Uruguay 1930, 1950

2  Argentina 1978, 1986

2  France 1998, 2018

1  England 1966

1  Spain 2010

Edited December 14, 2018 by Robert

[Robert]

23 hours ago, rkomar said:

I had been going to the Canada matches in Vancouver for a while, and they almost always only had the lower bowl open.  So, that's under 25,000 per game.  The stands were mostly full for each game, but I doubt they would have regularly filled the upper bowl, as well.  Still, 25,000 is a lot better than the old numbers.

I was one of the 54,0270 in attendance, sitting in the upper bowl, at Canada's match against England, in Vancouver:

1)  2015-06-27  Vancouver, BC  CANADA - ENGLAND - 54,027

2)  2015-06-21  Vancouver, BC  CANADA - SWITZERLAND - 53,855

3)  2015-06-15  Montreal, QC  CANADA - NETHERLANDS - 45,420

4)  2015-06-11  Edmonton, AB  CANADA - NEW ZEALAND - 35,544

5)  2015-06-06  Edmonton, AB  CANADA - CHINA - 53,058

[rkomar]

Sure, that's for the World Cup.  The various qualifiers and friendlies only use the lower bowl, though.  If they thought they could fill the whole place, they would have opened up the upper bowl, as well.  When you said that the team regularly draws 50,000, I assumed that you meant for all games, not just World Cup ones.

[rkomar]

As said, odds follow the betting.  I would guess that the majority of bets are not well researched, but rather come from the heart.  If the sports writers at major newspapers don't know much about the Canadian team, why would the general betting public?

[Robert]

9 hours ago, rkomar said:

Sure, that's for the World Cup.  The various qualifiers and friendlies only use the lower bowl, though.  If they thought they could fill the whole place, they would have opened up the upper bowl, as well.  When you said that the team regularly draws 50,000, I assumed that you meant for all games, not just World Cup ones.

Canada has played eight friendlies in Canada since the 2015 World Cup, and only two of those have been in Vanacouver. The six games played in Winnipeg, Toronto, Hamilton and Ottawa were all in stadiums that had capacities of less than 50,000. The two matches in Vancouver attracted crowds of 22,508 and 28,017, which is very respectable considering they were a pair of friendlies that were played in November and February:

1)  2018-09-02  Ottawa, ON  CANADA - BRAZIL - 16,128

2)  2018-06-10  Hamilton, ON  CANADA - GERMANY - 22,826

3)  2017-11-09  Vancouver, BC  CANADA - U.S.A. - 28,017

4)  2017-06-11  Toronto, ON  CANADA - COSTA RICA - 20,628

5)  2017-06-08  Winnipeg, MB  CANADA - COSTA RICA - 14,434

6)  2017-02-04  Vancouver, BC  CANADA - MEXICO - 22,508

7)  2016-06-07  Ottawa, ON  CANADA - BRAZIL - 23,588

8) 2016-06-04  Toronto, ON  CANADA - BRAZIL - 28,604

Edited December 15, 2018 by Robert

[Robert]

31 minutes ago, rkomar said:

As said, odds follow the betting.  I would guess that the majority of bets are not well researched, but rather come from the heart.  If the sports writers at major newspapers don't know much about the Canadian team, why would the general betting public?

It's always a good thing to have people in your corner who believe in you. Especially when its the media.

[Robert]

Given that the Canadian National Women's Team has only played 4 of its last 22 home internationals at BC Place, I would say that drawing over 50,000 spectators in 50% of those matches could be considered as being fairly regular. In fact, the total attendance at those 4 BC Place matches equals 158,407 paying customers, for an average of just under 40,000 per game.

The total attendance for the 9 internationals that the Canadian National Women's Team played immediately prior to Christine's debut totaled 33,058 spectators, for an average of 3,673 spectators per game.

That's 40,000 spectators per match with Sinclair and 3,673 spectators per match without Sinclair. Talk about star drawing power. That must be right up there with Tiger Woods. No wonder that organizers of tour events want Tiger playing in their tournaments, even if he is playing poorly. At an average cost of $35 per ticket, the CSA is cashing in $1,271,445 more per game just off of tickets sales alone when Christine is in the line-up.

Just imagine what the attendance figures will be like for the Canadian Women's National Team at home match in the future if they lack the proper preparation for a successful 2019 World Cup campaign and perform poorly in France, AND Christine retires? The CSA won't have to think about renting BC Place any more if that happens. The time to think about the future of Canadian women's soccer is right NOW!!!

[carolynduthie]

48 minutes ago, Robert said:

Given that the Canadian National Women's Team has only played 4 of its last 22 home internationals at BC Place, I would say that drawing over 50,000 spectators in 50% of those matches could be considered as being fairly regular. In fact, the total attendance at those 4 BC Place matches equals 158,407 paying customers, for an average of just under 40,000 per game.

The total attendance for the 9 internationals that the Canadian National Women's Team played immediately prior to Christine's debut totaled 33,058 spectators, for an average of 3,673 spectators per game.

That's 40,000 spectators per match with Sinclair and 3,673 spectators per match without Sinclair. Talk about star drawing power. That must be right up there with Tiger Woods. No wonder that organizers of tour events want Tiger playing in their tournaments, even if he is playing poorly. At an average cost of $35 per ticket, the CSA is cashing in $1,271,445 more per game just off of tickets sales alone when Christine is in the line-up.

Just imagine what the attendance figures will be like for the Canadian Women's National Team at home match in the future if they lack the proper preparation for a successful 2019 World Cup campaign and perform poorly in France, AND Christine retires? The CSA won't have to think about renting BC Place any more if that happens. The time to think about the future of Canadian women's soccer is right NOW!!!

Look I don't want to dispute that Sinclair is a draw but there's a pretty necessary correlation does not equal causation warning here. 

[Robert]

5 hours ago, carolynduthie said:

Look I don't want to dispute that Sinclair is a draw but there's a pretty necessary correlation does not equal causation warning here. 

Please feel free to spit it out.

[Vic]

You've made the math fit the outcome you want.

There are more there to see (a) Canada, and (b) our talented young players like Jessie Fleming, Kadeisha Buchanan, Ashley Lawrence, etc.

This is a topic that should end, there's no need to take it further and get into the why. For her sake.

Let's just leave it at that you think she is the sole draw and others have a different opinion.

[Robert]

On 12/15/2018 at 3:04 AM, Vic said:

You've made the math fit the outcome you want.

There are more there to see (a) Canada, and (b) our talented young players like Jessie Fleming, Kadeisha Buchanan, Ashley Lawrence, etc.

This is a topic that should end, there's no need to take it further and get into the why. For her sake.

Let's just leave it at that you think she is the sole draw and others have a different opinion.

The math is, what the math is. I didn't make-up those attendance figures, and you are free to interpret those numbers any way you choose. I see the number of bums in seats directly correlating to what is being displayed on the field. Personally, every ticket that I have ever purchased to see Canadian Women's National Team play (and that includes a $500 ticket to the 2015 World Cup Final to see the U.S.A. and Japan) was only because I wanted to see Christine Sinclair play.

Jessie Fleming, Kadeisha Buchanan, and Ashley Lawrence are just like any other player who dons the Maple Leaf, and until they prove themselves at a Women's World Cup Final tournament, I will not be investing my time and money. It's not just about Jessie Fleming, Kadeisha Buchanan, and Ashley Lawrence! It's about their daughters and granddaughters too!!!

For now, I'm just looking forward to attending a great match in Reims, on June 20, 2019.

 

[Vic]

Completely fair. As I said, my experience is the opposite.

$500 woah! Good on you. I caught one of the semi's but sadly couldn't see the final. Your story reminds me of being in LA in 2003 with tickets to a WWC doubleheader and and getting poisoned and being in the hospital and not able to even get out of bed. Had been looking forward to it for months and still remember the feeling.

[Robert]

2 hours ago, Vic said:

Completely fair. As I said, my experience is the opposite.

$500 woah! Good on you. I caught one of the semi's but sadly couldn't see the final. Your story reminds me of being in LA in 2003 with tickets to a WWC doubleheader and and getting poisoned and being in the hospital and not able to even get out of bed. Had been looking forward to it for months and still remember the feeling.

Talk about inflation, eh? Back in 1990, the price I  paid for a World Cup semi-final ticket to see the Argentina (Diego Maradona) versus Italy (Roberto Baggio) match in Naples was only $50 Canadian.

Kinda makes you wonder what a World Cup ticket 25 years from now will cost. I guess at the same rate of inflation (10 times) it will cost around $5,000. Holy shit! If that's the case, my next book better be a best-seller.?

[The Ref]

On 12/13/2018 at 9:34 PM, BearcatSA said:

Lawrence is notable omission for me. 

Ashley Lawrence just renewed her contract with PSG until 2023.