Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ansem

Match Thread - May 4th - Valour FC vs FC Edmonton **CONCACAF League Qualifiers**

Recommended Posts

 

How Canadian. You get a point, you get a point, everyone gets a point. 

Spring Season

Pos.
 
P
Pts
Form
1 Edmonton 1 3
 
2 Cavalry 1 3
W
3 Valour 2 3
W
4 Pacific 2 3
WL
5 Wanderers 2 3
LW
6 York9 2 1
DL
7 Forge 2 1
DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

domination by valour but doesnt mean much when you allow a couple cheap goals and waste so many plays or dont find solutions in the final third..on edmonton side they did enough but didic was off at the back, temguia was better and bonsu was way off..touches too heavy, losing battles easily and missing breakaway..will be interesting to see if they can get a good number of points with this squad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fil said:

 

How Canadian. You get a point, you get a point, everyone gets a point. 

Spring Season

Pos.
 
P
Pts
Form
1 Edmonton 1 3
 
2 Cavalry 1 3
W
3 Valour 2 3
W
4 Pacific 2 3
WL
5 Wanderers 2 3
LW
6 York9 2 1
DL
7 Forge 2 1
DL

Arrggghhh. I’ve been trying to avoid the Forge vs Halifax result all day so I could watch the replay, but you posting the standings has spoiled the result. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Valour should have put them away in the first half,...........but that's how it goes when you squander your chances.  Two sloppy goals at the back.  

Did anyone hear the announced crowd ?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Edmonton defended extremely well, particularly in the second half. They are a very well organized team that look more like rugby players than footballers. Very basic but nevertheless effective football.

In the second half it just looked as though Valour had no idea whatsoever how to break them down. Not very encouraging for Valour fans.

Another very good performance from Sacramento but Arguiñarena was my MOTM. Had a couple of slip ups after the match was already lost, but other than those he always retained posession and made a number of timely and effective tackles.

Better performance from Thomas but in real time I thought he was culpable on Edmonton's winner (the goal that put them ahead to stay is obviously the winner). 

Hoyle looks just plain tired after two matches. Good thing Valour have lots of depth at CF and didn't sign a bazillion midfielders.

Petrasso ran hard as usual but hardly ever shoots. Too much tippy tappy in the opposition box until the opportunity just went begging.

Rob Gale has told Valour to be brave in the final third. I don't think that means always choosing to play backwards and retain posession instead of playing a dangerous pass forwards, which might lose you the ball.

Almost 10,000 fans in attendance. I'd call that a very good start.

Kudos to the small but enthusiastic group of travelling FCE fans!

IG Field is very poor for atmosphere because it does not retain noise very well. And it is much too big for Valour.

Valour supporters need to ditch the "TFC" chant. 😊  Ditto for Pacific. And as for the "lets go Bombers", I mean "Valour", don't get me started.

Edited by Lofty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Valour were definitely the better team on the day. They had some very nice combination play that was the best in the league I have seen so far.

I didn't understand Gale's substitutions. I know this was your second game in less than 72 hours, but removing Hoyle and Sacramento made no sense, especially when you are trailing by a goal in your home debut match!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It fascinates me how much Hoyle is all over the field, he's on both sides of the pitch and he was even at our own corner flag at one point (not because of a corner). I don't know if this is part of the game plan but I don't think it's good in the long term with all these matches coming up Gale is going to have to tinker with his tactics and subs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, masster said:

Valour were definitely the better team on the day. They had some very nice combination play that was the best in the league I have seen so far.

I didn't understand Gale's substitutions. I know this was your second game in less than 72 hours, but removing Hoyle and Sacramento made no sense, especially when you are trailing by a goal in your home debut match!

Hoyle ran his socks off against Pacific and was visibly tiring against FCE. And we have to play Attardo sometime.

Sacramento was an absolute bulldog in the middle third against Pacific and that kind of effort takes a toll. Although he wasn't showing obvious signs of tiring when substituted against FCE, he did seem to be less involved than he had been earlier so I'm sure that leg weariness was the reason he came off. It certainly can't have been related to his performance on the day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Already.  My not so quick 10. 

1st.  OneSoccer.  I don't know who made the decision NOT to mic the crowd but viewed a little different than my in-house experience.  Doug was saying things were quieter in his section than mine.  Fair enough but up north in 104 it was fairly lively, as it was either side of us (Supporters section one side driving things but some very good involvment, and initiative, to our left as well).

Also, if Mitch Peacock is doing match commentary he probably shouldn't be partnered with Sloane-Seale.  Two guys who know what they're watching but dry toast with more dry toast isn't exactly the tastiest feeding of football.  Here's hoping they grow into it as the season progresses.  Good luck, lads.  You're part of what this league is about. 

2nd.  The ref, Lauziere, needs to show better.  A LOT BETTER.  It's a tough match to call, players will figure it out as they go along so long as there's some consistancy.  So more consistancy, please.  Oh yeah, and keep the attitude for when you're ref'ing the amateurs. 

3rd.  Edmonton's back 4?  Very good yesterday.  If Soria wasn't MOTM then Temguia was, at least on the Edmonton side of the argument.  But job done everyone.  

4th.  Heavy legs out there for Valour.  REALLY began to show as the match got on.  I'm a-feard for Wednesday.

5th.  Speaking of heavy legs, Hoyle has to maybe economise a little on the running to save the legs for the quality when needed.  Not trying to cramp his style, just saying.  

6th.  Much better from Thomas and Murrell.  Much better.   

7th.  Only two matches in but am really liking the middle belt of Gutierez, Golubar, Beland-Goyette and Sacramento.  Attacking wingers and Golubar and Beland-Goyette hinge off each other very well.  Golubar really knows this game.  Excellent movement defending or attaching and some quality with the ball.  To my eye anyway.  And Sacramento is doing all he's being asked for plus change. 

8th.  Don't know who sits in the pocket behind, and in support of the strikers, but yesterday it shouldn't have been Carreiro.  Maybe in the future but not now.    

9th.  Michael Petresso deserves a raise.  "I'm not a striker I just play one on Valour FC."  Pretty convincing actor no? 

10th.  When's Musse going to be 100%?  Sooner rather than later I hope.  Teasing a little there Saturday. 

 

   

  

Edited by Cheeta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My one thought about this game is that, for someone who seems able to do a lot of good things with the ball, Golubar doesn't seem to get the ball often enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I see that Rob Gale banged on about "Fergie time" (or in this case reverse Fergie time) in his post match comments and he is absolutely right: there should have been more than 3 added minutes. And wasn't there a substitution in added time? If it was a MINIMUM of 3 added minutes BEFORE that substitution, then how was it not MORE than 3 added minutes afterwards? And how on earth was it only 3 minutes in the first place? Six substitutions, two goals, a few stoppages for players to be treated, and the usual measure of time wasting.

How in this day and age is it possible for the time to be the ref's little secret; and for everyone to know that it is a very arbitrary little secret?

Football needs a VISIBLE CLOCK, which is simply stopped when whatever is happening is not part of the match. DUH! 

Edited by Lofty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soccer timekeeping is an art not science😎.    I do agree though that a lot of referees are very inconsistent when it comes to adding time, with all the adjustments that IFAB have been making to the laws it will probably be a matter of time before timekeeping comes under the microscope.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Lofty said:

Football needs a VISIBLE CLOCK, which is simply stopped when whatever is happening is not part of the match. DUH! 

You'd be surprised with how long games would be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MM3/MM2/MM said:

Soccer timekeeping is an art not science😎.    I do agree though that a lot of referees are very inconsistent when it comes to adding time, with all the adjustments that IFAB have been making to the laws it will probably be a matter of time before timekeeping comes under the microscope.

.

I disagree entirely! There are specific things that are not considered to be part of the match. The ref is supposed to "add on" time for these things only. Timing things is definitely a science, not an art!

A few examples:

1. Goal is scored. Clock stops immediately and resumes when play is restarted. Celebrate for as long as you like. No need for the unsightly grabbing of the ball to rush back to the centre circle if you are still losing.

2. Substitution. Clock stops immediately and resumes when play is restarted. No need for the unsightly slow walk off, no need for the ridiculous band aid solution that says players have to leave the pitch at the closest point, and no need for time wasting substitutions.

3. Player is down "injured". Clock stops immediately and is blown in again by the referee, or when play restarts. No need for those fake injuries when you are trying to run down the clock.

4. Taking too long to put the ball into play. Referee calls timeout and the clock resumes when the ball is put back into play. No need for any more of those silly time wasting yellow cards and everybody can see that time wasting no longer works.

What have I missed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, El Diego said:

You'd be surprised with how long games would be

They would be EXACTLY THE SAME LENGTH and that would not surprise me!

If the only stoppage is for 2 mins at the 10 minute mark, the half will end after exactly 47 mins in both cases! But in my case the match clock will read 45 mins because it will have been stopped for 2 mins. The math is undeniable!

Edit: Oh, and in my world, the time of a goal scored in the 45th minute would be "45", not the utterly ludicrous "45+2"!!! 😂

Not to mention that the time of a goal scored in the 11th minute of the match would be "11", not the utterly assinine "13", which makes no sense whatsoever! You might as well record the time of the goal as 7:43pm (assuming a 7:30pm kick off) for all the relevance "13" has to the elapsed playing time when the goal was scored!

 

Edited by Lofty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, El Diego said:

You'd be surprised with how long games would be

There has been some discussion about 60 minute, stopped time matches. I think that is definitely worth testing out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, masster said:

There has been some discussion about 60 minute, stopped time matches. I think that is definitely worth testing out. 

Sure, but that would be a fundamental change to the timing.

A visible clock that stops whenever an even occurs that is not part of the match does not have any effect on the length of the match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...