Jump to content
Olympique_de_Marseille

Olympic Qualifying Tournament 2020: Jan 28 - Feb 9

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Lofty said:

Oh good, a keyboard warrior. Go spit your bile at someone else you w@nker. I can appreciate good football no matter who plays it.

Just stating the obvious as a Cdn team supporter who despises the Yank ladies, their coaches, their demeanour, and their supporters and have done so for an awfully long time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ed_S said:

Just stating the obvious as a Cdn team supporter who despises the Yank ladies, their coaches, their demeanour, and their supporters and have done so for an awfully long time

Good for you. Keep on hating. Just keep me out of your little jerk circle of hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From this particular display I think we are still miles behind the US in talent and it would take an upset of massive proportions to get a result against them, we do have a couple of players at their level but that's not enough, obviously errors have to be kept to a minimum to have a chance! The good news is we have some time to improve before meaningful matches are played!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The women's team is the inverse of the men's team. Lots of depth & talent on the back line and goalkeeping. But midfield & up front, it is below average relative to other top 10 nations. 

KHM compounds the problem by playing too many non-dynamic attacking players. KHM has put in more varied formations than Herdman but none of them has delivered offensively when a team bunkers or is in the top 10. KHM has also been more reluctant to play younger players in the bigger matches. 

Against the US, they needed to score in the first half. 2012 Sinclair would have scored. But with minimal player rotation on 1.5 days of rest, you knew Canada would start wilting while the US would still be fresh since they played 6 fresh players.

At least Fleming finally showed some pop in her legs and provided a couple of incisive passes but then turned the ball over for the third goal. Buchanan has improved in disposing players of the ball with no danger of fouling. Lawrence is the best player on the team - needs to start in the middle more.

For the Olympic roster of 18, two will need to be cut - likely will be D'Angelo & Carle. Only new player that might crack the 18 is Olivia Smith. 

If Canada doesn't get out of its group - time to let KHM go. If they don't win a winnable quarterfinal, time to let him go. 

Edited by red card

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Leon was fresh as a daisy and has the speed Canada were sorely lacking on the day. I can't believe we didn't see her in the final.

Agree about Lawrence being the best player on the pitch for Canada but I don't hate the idea of using her speed out wide.

I hope Carle makes the final 18. She showed me something in this tournament. A tough physical player who certainly has some skill. But Chapman is still a touch better at LB.

KMH lacks imagination. It is a serious shortcoming for a coach.

Share this post


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

The Globe and Mail's TV critic and sometime soccer writer, John Doyle, wrote about the lack of TV coverage for Olympic qualifying.

The never-ending marginalization of women’s sports on TV

His theories are mostly wrong, but I bet OneSoccer loves the publicity.

Ha, this is kind of funny/ironic. Here is what I see.

”... getting those fans to fork over money to watch crucial games”

“To keep reading this article, you must be a globe and mail subscriber. Become one now for $1.99 per week.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I promise I wasn't trying to get you to fork over money to read that half-baked column. I forgot about the paywall.

He writes that the national women’s soccer team shouldn’t be so difficult to see on TV.

Summing it up:

"There’s a lot of mystery surrounding the issue of women’s soccer here. A lot of Canadians, men and women, would love to wear a Sinclair shirt, but try purchasing one. They don’t seem to exist. It’s the murky broadcast issue that sticks, mind you. Call it sneaky moves or call it just business, but it looks like women’s sports being marginalized over and over again."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rivaldo said:

I promise I wasn't trying to get you to fork over money to read that half-baked column. I forgot about the paywall.

He writes that the national women’s soccer team shouldn’t be so difficult to see on TV.

Summing it up:

"There’s a lot of mystery surrounding the issue of women’s soccer here. A lot of Canadians, men and women, would love to wear a Sinclair shirt, but try purchasing one. They don’t seem to exist. It’s the murky broadcast issue that sticks, mind you. Call it sneaky moves or call it just business, but it looks like women’s sports being marginalized over and over again."

I think this is far more of a "football" issue than a "women's sports" issue.

It's not as though we get wall to wall coverage of the men!

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

×
×
  • Create New...