Jump to content

England vs Canada - Tuesday April 13th, Stoke City (bet365) Stadium - 2:15pm Eastern / 11:15am Pacific


Recommended Posts

I agree with the comments given.  It was nice that we scored those goals, and I would have been ecstatic about them in serious competition, but they were mostly down to luck.  I would have been happier if they came at the end of some sustained  and menacing attacking.  I was more pleased with our play at the other end of the pitch.  That's what you want to see with the Olympics coming up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same day replay on OneSoccer! I was able to catch the game this evening, I hope this is the new normal for OneSoccer.

As for the game, like others have said, we didn't create our goals but it's still good to be able to pounce on those mistakes when they happen. Very solid at the back, I only recall one threatening moment from England and it ended up in a blocked shot (wouldn't have been blocked if the shot was towards the near post though, the striker kind of angled it to the only place Gilles could get to).

Solid win though. I'll take a 2-0 win against England any day.

Edited by Kent
"Would" corrected to "wouldn't"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

So how to folks feel about Priestman?

The team seems properly coached to me. 

Considering we are really a quarter final-type team, top 8 as a threshold, you realise now that the previous Olympic medals were really amazing achievements. 

They look like they're playing the same style as the men. Wasn't Priestman an assistant with Herdman? Anyway, their defensive shape has been great.  As with the men, we have a good amount of skill and athleticism in mid and up front to press and harass, and it looks like we may have a few other scoring options outside of Sinclair. 

Those goals against England weren't flukes.  We have a fast team, and Priestman's using it, which is great.  Granted, I didn't see the SheBelieves Cup, but the CWNT looked, to me, much more dangerous this weekend than at any time during the last World Cup.

Priestman gets a passing grade from me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Priestman has maintained the solid defensive structure seen under KHM. But it looks like the back line seems more comfortable playing out from pressure.

Offensively, she has improved the structure from being lethargic to showing some flashes of dynamism.

No one really emerged under KHM but it seems Quinn is stepping up. Creativity in midfield is still hard to find but given Carle, Riviere & Chapman all can handle being fullbacks, Lawrence should be in the middle of the park against most opponents. Otherwise, it's about relying on speed, power and jumping on mistakes.

And it looks like Canada can play and score without Sinclair. Viens is a good technical poacher in a similar vein as Sinclair. Huitema can bring energy and physicality as a sub.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said earlier, I'm not so convinced about our attacking ability.  We are overly deliberate in most attacks, while not having the ability to break down the structured defense that has time to organize itself.  Against a poorer defense in Wales, nice through-balls behind the back line were misplayed time and again by our attackers, usually not even resulting in a shot on goal.  All this was also apparent at the She Believes Cup.  We are going to have a hard time scoring against good teams if things stay as they are.  We need to figure out how to be more effective on attack, or we'll have to rely on luck and hope that the opponent makes mistakes like England did.  At the very least, we should try to improve crossing the ball into the box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched part of the Spain Mexico friendly and really Spain is similar, eventually they score but really have trouble breaking down a rival in attack. 

Mexico is young, immature, a long way from us still, but on a good day could get a result. We have to be a bit patient and as said, a lot more efficient when going at goal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, red card said:

Priestman has maintained the solid defensive structure seen under KHM. But it looks like the back line seems more comfortable playing out from pressure.

Offensively, she has improved the structure from being lethargic to showing some flashes of dynamism.

No one really emerged under KHM but it seems Quinn is stepping up. Creativity in midfield is still hard to find but given Carle, Riviere & Chapman all can handle being fullbacks, Lawrence should be in the middle of the park against most opponents. Otherwise, it's about relying on speed, power and jumping on mistakes.

And it looks like Canada can play and score without Sinclair. Viens is a good technical poacher in a similar vein as Sinclair. Huitema can bring energy and physicality as a sub.

Yes I agree that Quinn is stepping up and she has the ability to send  a long pass, I like Viens as she is very physical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I watched part of the Spain Mexico friendly and really Spain is similar, eventually they score but really have trouble breaking down a rival in attack. 

Mexico is young, immature, a long way from us still, but on a good day could get a result. We have to be a bit patient and as said, a lot more efficient when going at goal. 

I watched the extended highlight reel of that on Tuesday night when I saw Nahikari Garcia scored twice. I believe Bonmati was the only starting player in that game who started in the Spanish win over the Netherlands last Friday. The Mexican game looked pretty wild and crazy with Spain all over their final third regularly but with weak decisions. I think the Spanish A side would have literally embarrassed Mexico and really respect that they didn't need to do it and took the approach they did.

I believe we've only lost to Mexico in one big game, a 1-2 loss in an Olympic qualifier in 2004 which knocked us out of Athens. An interesting side note - Maribel Domniguez (who scored both goals against us) signed for a second division men's team later that year but it was canned by FIFA.

The Mexican women's program was on the rise about 10-15 years ago but it fell off the ledge a while ago and they haven't punched their weight in a long time. If they're going youth and rebuilding via their league, their geographic proximity will help the national program.

I was looking at our roster the other day and into the 18 and 4 alternates. I expected it would be a really tough exercise but what you discover is that our first 10 or 11 are pretty easy to identify. After that there are a few we could inject into a match against a top 10 opponent and on their day could hold their own. Then there's a troubling drop-off which is going to be difficult to manage in terms of rotation in a tournament where you play every three days (with medal games your sixth game in 16 days). Success for us will require some of our young players to be on their personal best top form and able to come into a match against top 10 opposition and succeed.

Edited by _Vic_
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, _Vic_ said:

I watched the extended highlight reel of that on Tuesday night when I saw Nahikari Garcia scored twice. I believe Bonmati was the only starting player in that game who started in the Spanish win over the Netherlands last Friday. The Mexican game looked pretty wild and crazy with Spain all over their final third regularly but with weak decisions. I think the Spanish A side would have literally embarrassed Mexico and really respect that they didn't need to do it and took the approach they did.

I believe we've only lost to Mexico in one big game, a 1-2 loss in an Olympic qualifier in 2004 which knocked us out of Athens. An interesting side note - Maribel Domniguez (who scored both goals against us) signed for a second division men's team later that year but it was canned by FIFA.

The Mexican women's program was on the rise about 10-15 years ago but it fell off the ledge a while ago and they haven't punched their weight in a long time. If they're going youth and rebuilding via their league, their geographic proximity will help the national program.

I was looking at our roster the other day and into the 18 and 4 alternates. I expected it would be a really tough exercise but what you discover is that our first 10 or 11 are pretty easy to identify. After that there are a few we could inject into a match against a top 10 opponent and on their day could hold their own. Then there's a troubling drop-off which is going to be difficult to manage in terms of rotation in a tournament where you play every three days (with medal games your sixth game in 16 days). Success for us will require some of our young players to be on their personal best top form and able to come into a match against top 10 opposition and succeed.

Good post.

Mexico, like a lot of nations, have a few players in the Spanish league. I think when some of this group are a few years older they may be stronger, also considering they are putting money into their programme.

I often wonder why we don't have any Canadians in Spain when our quality would warrant it, with so many other nations with strong players in Spain, and I wonder if it's money. What I am basically saying is we need to get players in the CWNT orbit into competitive leagues, say into the top 4-5 leagues in Europe plus the US of course. A nation that is top 10 should have its 30 top players on decent clubs in competitive leagues. Are they just conformist? Maybe for Europe they may not be too interested at making 1500 euros a month away from home, or a bit more (maybe a modest foreign international would make over 2000/month). I don't know. 

Edited by Unnamed Trialist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the soccer snobs most recent podcast with Listro, she mentioned the issues she had in playing in Tenerife last year: didn't know language which made it hard to fit in especially during covid and was told to play elsewhere if she wanted to get noticed by national team management (might have changed under Priestman since Lacasse was invited to camp).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably a couple issues. I think most connections people have are in English/French speaking countries. For similar reason the Scandinavians were always popular because their English is outstanding and their lifestyle is pretty close too. Canadian women used to do Germany but it's less popular these days.

I haven't kept up on things but it used to be hard for Canadian women to play in Europe because of the regulations. For example if you wanted to play in the UK many years ago you had to have X% of your national teams most recent caps. Players usually got around things via their parents passport or if they were lucky enough to be duals themselves. That's probably all worked through now but I imagine there are still some places harder to get into than others.

You are right though and you would think Spain would be attractive with such a great combination of soccer, people and climate. English is the second most popular language and a lot of the young people speak it. Even in the Canary Islands you get a lot of English because of the tourism. Television is always an issue but if you like to watch soccer you're happy.

The reason many are in the States is CSA-supported allocations (10) and things like school connections. At one point in time we wanted players close so it was easier for the national team to convene. No halfway the other side of the world jet lag, no dozen connections and planes, trains and automobiles.

Like you mentioned though the world is changing and Canada is too. It used to be extremely rare for Canadian women to go to Europe, now it's becoming a lot more common. I think that's loosening on both sides too, as Canada has had more success internationally (thanks to two Olympic medals) there is more interest in them from abroad as well.

In a way it's natural because as the women's game professionalizes our women have to go the long-distance route our men do. But in another way it's kind of sad considering how the rest of the other early players in the women's game have produced infrastructure to support their women and keep them at home. There's always a reason why we can't and didn't do this, but at the end of the day it's all just bullshit.

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...