WCQ: Canada vs Haiti - In-Match Thread

[Metro]

2 hours ago, Gian-Luca said:

Yeah, the amount of people online who are claiming this looks like an intentional mistake is just idiotic. I don’t think you could repeat that accidental miskick with the instep foot if you rehearsed it a million times 

If my house league play is any indication, it can be done. Easily. 😄

Edited June 16, 2021 by Metro

[Unnamed Trialist]

4 hours ago, grigorio said:

For everyone hating on Wheeler, do you remember Forrest during these games? He was the polar opposite. Bashing Canada endlessly it was so demoralizing listening to those broadcasts. Was depressing enough watching a lot of those games didn't need Forrest jabbering on all match about how poor and not good enough everything was that we saw. 

I did not mind Forrest demanding a higher quality of play, but his only point of reference was his own context. So he did have a standard for some things, but he ignored 90% of world football and was frankly extremely Anglo-centric--and I am not talking about the English language. Forrest had no clue about tactics, even on the level they were happening in the 90s. He rarely made an intelligent observation about why something was or was not working. He was a commentator without analytical capacity, he just yapped through existing filters. He spoke as if the Netherlands and Cruyff in the 70s had never existed, as if Platini hadn't happened, knew nothing about Sacchi--I frankly don't even think he ever watched Zidane's France. Just mid-table EPL, where you had Harry Redknapp as the standard. True, a helluva lot better than anything we ever saw in Canada, but really. 

The other thing was he constantly harped about gamesmanship, and it never occured to him that we had to learn a bit to survive in Concacaf and that all of Latin America were not deprecable and fundamentally immoral because they stayed down after a light foul when a goal up. Yes, he was a cultural supremacist in football terms, I found it disgusting to the point of being racist, though of course I don't believe he was fundamentally racist; he simply believed his view of world soccer was superior. 

 

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

5 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

He simply believed his view of world soccer was superior. 

As do most people; that is why we hold those views. As do you, as demonstrated by that post and many others.

"The West Ham Way" though is not something you seem familiar with.  West Ham have never been a consistent mid table team, it has been much worse  quite often.  We, especially to Forrest's time, tried to play attacking football often without players that were good  enough and therefore often with disastrous results. You could do that when financial stakes were not as crazy.

Rednapp was playing along side Bobby Moore, Geoff Hurst and Martin Peters, all cultured players at their positions and who matched up against the players and styles you mentioned.  Slightly later you had Sir Trevor Brooking who again played with Rednapp. (Watch some video of Moore and Brooking or read what people like Pele said about them.) Later West Ham heroes included Alan Devonshire and Paolo Di Canio (Forrest's time).  Mercurial talents but who tried to play football the "right" way.

That is what the fans expected and that was part of the West Ham Way. It is why despite being mostly midtable, many supporters still hated and hate Sam Allardyce and his era.  It was practical mid table football, that was not the Rednapp era though. 

We all have our biases and blind spots. I can remember you forgetting Diego Costa existed in your rush to make a point about Spain and dual nationals, once. But it is worth considering our own biases when considering pundits' - especially ex players who have played at a decent level.

 

[Unnamed Trialist]

11 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

As do most people; that is why we hold those views. As do you, as demonstrated by that post and many others.

"The West Ham Way" though is not something you seem familiar with.  West Ham have never been a consistent mid table team, it has been much worse  quite often.  We, especially to Forrest's time, tried to play attacking football often without players that were good  enough and therefore often with disastrous results. You could do that when financial stakes were not as crazy.

Rednapp was playing along side Bobby Moore, Geoff Hurst and Martin Peters, all cultured players at their positions and who matched up against the players and styles you mentioned.  Slightly later you had Sir Trevor Brooking who again played with Rednapp. (Watch some video of Moore and Brooking or read what people like Pele said about them.) Later West Ham heroes included Alan Devonshire and Paolo Di Canio (Forrest's time).  Mercurial talents but who tried to play football the "right" way.

That is what the fans expected and that was part of the West Ham Way. It is why despite being mostly midtable, many supporters still hated and hate Sam Allardyce and his era.  It was practical mid table football, that was not the Rednapp era though. 

We all have our biases and blind spots. I can remember you forgetting Diego Costa existed in your rush to make a point about Spain and dual nationals, once. But it is worth considering our own biases when considering pundits' - especially ex players who have played at a decent level.

Good post, I am obviously not versed in West Ham. All I know it was a "sexy" team at one point, perhaps before Craig's time there. And I guess I know more about Redknapp in this century, where he seems rather workaday. I guess every country has coaches like that, Camacho was a Spanish version.

As for biases, definitely. Though I have seen the top three tiers of English football, so there must be something I like about it. I'd say I can be convinced, the last England WC team convinced me, plenty of players of a certain type enamour me, from Scholes to Foden but also Shearer, if you know what I mean. 

I am not even a hater of Forrest, for me he was at one point the greatest player in Canadian soccer history. I'd even say he is still up there, someone who led us to our only major trophy. It just irked me how he looked down on anyone playing anything other than a cliche version of the game as played by noble types like him. My sense, listening to him as a Canadian who ended up in Spain, was that he fcking despised Latin football, and that was hard to listen to in the name of Canada.

Edited June 16, 2021 by Unnamed Trialist

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

16 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

It just irked me how he looked down on anyone playing anything other than a cliche version of the game as played by noble types like him. 

Fair enough.  I will agree he did/does have a West Ham way manner of speaking where there is a right way to play.  Which does ring hollow when you have won very little.  Even to other English fans.  

Lots of fun being a supporter with that irony in the background.

Edited June 16, 2021 by WestHamCanadianinOxford

[CanMNT Memes]

[BearcatSA]

To be fair to any "colour" commentator alongside a pbp person, I found most of the analysis to be weak and often outright wrong.  The best analysis should occur at half time and post game by someone not under pressure to create sound bites to avoid dead air in the middle of the game's broadcast.  Though I wouldn't listen to OneSoccer's pbp team (or ESPN's or Fox's, ftm), I do listen to Jack and Platt with Andi as the moderator because they've had the time to be more thoughtful while being away from the camera.  Having the color guy coming on at the half usually too often results in the same snap judgments that wete made during the play being reinforced. 

I also don't like it when the broadcast team parrots a club's p.r. script in their commentary, even though the performance is crap.  It's like they have been given talking points which were expected to be delivered early and often in the broadcast, regardless of what any knowledgeable fan could clearly see to the contary on the field.   

That's why I listen to tv games in silence:  I can draw my own conclusions without the distracting (and erroneous) banter going on.  But that's just my preference.  I love going to live games but that is a totally different viewing and entertainment perspective.

[Macksam]

19 hours ago, Watchmen said:

I think the fact they had so many chances is because Davies and David are enormously talented with a strong supporting cast, and has less to do with the coaching. It's back to back games where the team has started slow and tentative, and more talented teams (ie virtually everyone in the octo) will be more punishing of it. It was a Haiti team missing some its best players that held Canada tight enough until a miss play of the year contender forced them to open up a bit more.

We'll see what happens. At the very least, I'm excited to watch meaningful games in the year leading up to the World Cup for the first time in forever. 

Can you provide us with a timestamp from yesterday's game where Panama/Costa Rica/Honduras/El Salvador would have punished us for our tentativeness?

They held us tight through sheer luck. It should have been 3-0 even prior to the own goal.

8 hours ago, grigorio said:

For everyone hating on Wheeler, do you remember Forrest during these games? He was the polar opposite. Bashing Canada endlessly it was so demoralizing listening to those broadcasts. Was depressing enough watching a lot of those games didn't need Forrest jabbering on all match about how poor and not good enough everything was that we saw. 

I remember.

7 hours ago, BearcatSA said:

That's because we were poor and not good enough on too many ocassions.  Can't polish a turd.

@Ivan 

And now we are good and full of exciting young talent so we have a guy praising the team, the opposite of before so it all comes full circle. If you were fine with Forrest's excessive criticism of the past, you shouldn't take issue with Wheeler's excessive praise of the present. 

[BearcatSA]

15 minutes ago, Macksam said:

And now we are good and full of exciting young talent so we have a guy praising the team, the opposite of before so it all comes full circle. If you were fine with Forrest's excessive criticism of the past, you shouldn't take issue with Wheeler's excessive praise of the present. 

 

To each their own.  As I stated in my last post, I just don't listen to much pbp anymore, covering the spectrum of pompoms to subdued.  If something seems askew, I would playback my pvr to hear what's going on, but generally I watch the game with the mute on.

[Ivan]

9 hours ago, Macksam said:

 

@Ivan 

And now we are good and full of exciting young talent so we have a guy praising the team, the opposite of before so it all comes full circle. If you were fine with Forrest's excessive criticism of the past, you shouldn't take issue with Wheeler's excessive praise of the present. 

Not sure if you are directing that at me @Macksam but I don't remember criticising Wheeler in this thread.  I don't mind Wheeler, although I do believe he goes overboard with homerism at times.  I think Forrest's criticisms came down more to his competitive fire and frustration. After all, we had some pretty horrific results during his and Gerry's time.

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

13 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

My sense, listening to him as a Canadian who ended up in Spain, was that he fcking despised Latin football, and that was hard to listen to in the name of Canada.

I will add one more thing to this, I don't necessarily remember that but wasn't listen for it either.  But going back to what a West Ham fan would think, they will not stand for diving and that kind of gamesmanship, even from their own players. I know that, just like every English team is not Vinnie Jones-Crazy Gang-Wimbledons, Latin football is not all that but it is more that than they/I liked.  They love their flair - Payet is the most recent example I forgot - but hate that "professional" aspect of the game, which they saw in many foreign players. Maybe that sense rubbed off on Forrest. (Not that it is not English thing as well these days - see Grealish or Zaha or even Kane.)

All seen through claret and blue specs as they say. 

[rkomar]

I think this despising of fakery to draw fouls is firmly rooted in Canadian sports culture (inherited from the British).  I bet Forrest already felt that way even before he played in the England.  I think the majority of Canadian hockey and football fans still view soccer as that wimpy sport where the players fall down and roll around on the ground whenever anyone touches them.  Perhaps baseball fans might appreciate the trickery involved, but I'm not sure of that either.  Is it racism to disdain those cultures that practice the dark arts?  Maybe, perhaps hating what makes the other culture different is racism.  This is a tough one because accepting the dark arts means giving up our own culture (at least the one I grew up in).

[MtlMario]

Isn't there a rule that you get a yellow if you are faking an injury? If so why is it rarely used?

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

12 minutes ago, MtlMario said:

Isn't there a rule that you get a yellow if you are faking an injury? If so why is it rarely used?

Just saw it in the Euro game going on right now. But I agree, it will continue to grow unless they apply that rule more. Tough to see it though as it punishes superstars. 

[Unnamed Trialist]

1 hour ago, rkomar said:

I think this despising of fakery to draw fouls is firmly rooted in Canadian sports culture (inherited from the British).  I bet Forrest already felt that way even before he played in the England.  I think the majority of Canadian hockey and football fans still view soccer as that wimpy sport where the players fall down and roll around on the ground whenever anyone touches them.  Perhaps baseball fans might appreciate the trickery involved, but I'm not sure of that either.  Is it racism to disdain those cultures that practice the dark arts?  Maybe, perhaps hating what makes the other culture different is racism.  This is a tough one because accepting the dark arts means giving up our own culture (at least the one I grew up in).

Well I was marked by the attitude of our coaches in the 60s and 70s, who were very fair, and honest. But also did not care if we got injured and to hell with us. Talking about Vancouver, and a mostly Scots and Brits. I lost an entire season of cross country running, a sport I actually was good at (as well as middle distance) because a dumb-ass coach figured that slide tackle on my ankle as I ran the wing should just be run off. But the worst example was my cousin, who grew up in England and came to Vancouver aged 14, and was the absolutely best player on his team, who had his leg broken in a final when he was 16 and his coach made him play on it. Not joking. He never played again, I still remember camping at Lake Shuswap when he was still in a cast that summer, out fishing for Dolly Varden. So these people have to be called what they really were: bastards. And this hypocritical anti-diving propaganda in Canada fed that, and may still feed it. 

To think that going down easy is morally reprobate, but looking to injure another human in the name of the game being physical is just fine, well that is perverse. And that is what I heard from Craig Forrest and won't stomach, sorry. You don't like diving? Well get over it, it is your fucking problem not the sports'. Better soccer players than Canadians have done it for years, and instead of recognizing that the Hondurans pass better, have better heads for the game, are more committed, are more skilled, and work better as a team--making us look pathetic--we wash it over with eternal piss-bag stories and try to diminish them for getting the most of a foul when up a goal late in a match.

But going down when touched is how you keep the hounds from going for your legs and not the ball, and so it protects the integrity of the game's quality. For me it is absolutely necessary, smart as hell, and in sum benefits soccer because it encourages defenders to play the ball and not someone's body with the possibility of permanent damage, which is a fundamentally reprobate thing to do. 

Canadians are too dumbshit to get this. And then justify the goon moves in hockey to top it off. 

Edited June 17, 2021 by Unnamed Trialist

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

52 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

To think that going down easy is morally reprobate, but looking to injure another human in the name of the game being physical is just fine, well that is perverse. And that is what I heard from Craig Forrest and won't stomach, sorry. You don't like diving? Well get over it, it is your fucking problem not the sports'. Better soccer players than Canadians have done it for years, and instead of recognizing that the Hondurans pass better, have better heads for the game, are more committed, are more skilled, and work better as a team--making us look pathetic--we wash it over with eternal piss-bag stories and try to diminish them for getting the most of a foul when up a goal late in a match.

But going down when touched is how you keep the hounds from going for your legs and not the ball, and so it protects the integrity of the game's quality. For  me it is absolutely necessary, smart as hell, and in sum benefits soccer because it encourages defenders to play the ball and not someone's body with the possibility of permanent damage, which is a fundamentally reprobate thing to do. 

Canadians are too dumbshit to get this. And then justify the goon moves in hockey to top it off. 

You make some good points, there certainly was different attitude on the pitch in the era when people killing each other in the stands and outside the ground was a reality.  We have learned a lot, there is sport science and we don't play with balls that essentially became medicine balls when wet anymore.  

However, I believe you are creating a false dichotomy, where condemning diving (whether touched or not) means to you are encouraging people to injury another player.  I can, and certainly do, do, one and not the other.  

Football is a contact sport.  Those are the rules as written. You are allowed to touch the player, not impede, not recklessly hurt but contact them when getting the ball.  If you pretend someone did something they did not do, that is fundamentally dishonest and you will never convince me that a simulation of being contacted harder than you were (or were contacted at all) "protects the integrity" of anything.

The concepts are antithetical - the words literally mean the opposite. Integrity = honesty.   Not get too political but is a political tactic to make words mean their opposite.  Governments explain dishonest actions by rewriting definitions.  To excuse cheating by saying it preserves any kind of integrity approaches that.  Sorry, but I need say that. 

I appreciate that personal experience drives this and a lot of things and that is valid.  But I feel the logic is fundamentally flawed and insulting a person or group, is not the indication of a strong argument. 

Edited June 17, 2021 by WestHamCanadianinOxford

[ag futbol]

 

9 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Well I was marked by the attitude of our coaches in the 60s and 70s, who were very fair, and honest. But also did not care if we got injured and to hell with us. Talking about Vancouver, and a mostly Scots and Brits. I lost an entire season of cross country running, a sport I actually was good at (as well as middle distance) because a dumb-ass coach figured that slide tackle on my ankle as I ran the wing should just be run off. But the worst example was my cousin, who grew up in England and came to Vancouver aged 14, and was the absolutely best player on his team, who had his leg broken in a final when he was 16 and his coach made him play on it. Not joking. He never played again, I still remember camping at Lake Shuswap when he was still in a cast that summer, out fishing for Dolly Varden. So these people have to be called what they really were: bastards. And this hypocritical anti-diving propaganda in Canada fed that, and may still feed it. 

To think that going down easy is morally reprobate, but looking to injure another human in the name of the game being physical is just fine, well that is perverse. And that is what I heard from Craig Forrest and won't stomach, sorry. You don't like diving? Well get over it, it is your fucking problem not the sports'. Better soccer players than Canadians have done it for years, and instead of recognizing that the Hondurans pass better, have better heads for the game, are more committed, are more skilled, and work better as a team--making us look pathetic--we wash it over with eternal piss-bag stories and try to diminish them for getting the most of a foul when up a goal late in a match.

But going down when touched is how you keep the hounds from going for your legs and not the ball, and so it protects the integrity of the game's quality. For me it is absolutely necessary, smart as hell, and in sum benefits soccer because it encourages defenders to play the ball and not someone's body with the possibility of permanent damage, which is a fundamentally reprobate thing to do. 

Canadians are too dumbshit to get this. And then justify the goon moves in hockey to top it off. 

Yeah, I’m with you on this. 

I don’t love diving / fakery but I also don’t love watching the skill taken straight out of the game by a bunch of dolts who just run around hacking. Not a great product to watch and also history would suggest not the way to win.

I still remember some poster on this forum stating they were at the game Hume was injured and there was “nothing in the challenge”.  Well, video comes out and it’s nothing short of some meat-head swinging his elbow like a hatchet over head height. Should have been a lifetime ban in my opinion or maybe even criminal charges. Tough to focus on playing the sport if you’re preoccupied with not having your skull fractured every time you go to knock down a ball as a striker.

But hey, “nothing in it” I guess... 

[archer21]

To me, the biggest problem with diving is the refereeing. If someone dives, they need to be given a card. If that happens enough, it will get diving out of the game. We don’t need players diving to protect the players. The referees should be doing that by penalizing the opposition appropriately. To me, all diving does is makes refs more hesitant to hand out cards because they have no idea whether the player is just faking or not half the time.

[costarg]

4 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Well I was marked by the attitude of our coaches in the 60s and 70s, who were very fair, and honest. But also did not care if we got injured and to hell with us. Talking about Vancouver, and a mostly Scots and Brits. I lost an entire season of cross country running, a sport I actually was good at (as well as middle distance) because a dumb-ass coach figured that slide tackle on my ankle as I ran the wing should just be run off. But the worst example was my cousin, who grew up in England and came to Vancouver aged 14, and was the absolutely best player on his team, who had his leg broken in a final when he was 16 and his coach made him play on it. Not joking. He never played again, I still remember camping at Lake Shuswap when he was still in a cast that summer, out fishing for Dolly Varden. So these people have to be called what they really were: bastards. And this hypocritical anti-diving propaganda in Canada fed that, and may still feed it. 

To think that going down easy is morally reprobate, but looking to injure another human in the name of the game being physical is just fine, well that is perverse. And that is what I heard from Craig Forrest and won't stomach, sorry. You don't like diving? Well get over it, it is your fucking problem not the sports'. Better soccer players than Canadians have done it for years, and instead of recognizing that the Hondurans pass better, have better heads for the game, are more committed, are more skilled, and work better as a team--making us look pathetic--we wash it over with eternal piss-bag stories and try to diminish them for getting the most of a foul when up a goal late in a match.

But going down when touched is how you keep the hounds from going for your legs and not the ball, and so it protects the integrity of the game's quality. For me it is absolutely necessary, smart as hell, and in sum benefits soccer because it encourages defenders to play the ball and not someone's body with the possibility of permanent damage, which is a fundamentally reprobate thing to do. 

Canadians are too dumbshit to get this. And then justify the goon moves in hockey to top it off. 

Both extremes you describe need to be removed from the game.  Just cause some jerk is out there is trying to end careers doesn't make it ok to fake and flop.  We don't have to live in the extremes.  The dangerous slides and chops are dangerous and should be punished, however faking is just pathetic. 

There is a middle ground, that's the sweet spot, that's what we should be aiming for.  

[ag futbol]

59 minutes ago, archer21 said:

To me, the biggest problem with diving is the refereeing. If someone dives, they need to be given a card. If that happens enough, it will get diving out of the game. We don’t need players diving to protect the players. The referees should be doing that by penalizing the opposition appropriately. To me, all diving does is makes refs more hesitant to hand out cards because they have no idea whether the player is just faking or not half the time.

But the problem with all this is we’re sort of dealing with a grey area in terms of interpretation. 

Somebody kicks you at the right spot in your leg (no matter how lightly) it’s not hard to fall straight over. Anyone’s who’s even slightly adept at fakery can leave room for reasonable doubt, so sort of hard to tell what the reality is.

It’s also hard to tell when physical defending crosses the line into persistent infringement or blatant attempts to physically impair someone from posing an attacking threat. I can never understand why people think physical play is just physical play. Its often used as a pretty dirty tool. I take no less offence to that than I do diving. 

 

[dyslexic nam]

Watching the Copa America game between Columbia and Venezuela.  It is the 84 minute and there has been what seems like 15 minutes of actual footy played.  Yes, there has to be a happy medium that avoids the flopping, diving and faux writhing on the ground.  

[Addona]

Does anyone have the final expected goals for both games vs Haiti?

[archer21]

1 hour ago, ag futbol said:

But the problem with all this is we’re sort of dealing with a grey area in terms of interpretation. 

Somebody kicks you at the right spot in your leg (no matter how lightly) it’s not hard to fall straight over. Anyone’s who’s even slightly adept at fakery can leave room for reasonable doubt, so sort of hard to tell what the reality is.

It’s also hard to tell when physical defending crosses the line into persistent infringement or blatant attempts to physically impair someone from posing an attacking threat. I can never understand why people think physical play is just physical play. Its often used as a pretty dirty tool. I take no less offence to that than I do diving. 

 

I was more so talking about people diving with no contact whatsoever. In leagues with VAR, you could easily just issue an auto yellow card for any dive where the player wasn’t touched. Don’t even need the ref to go to the monitor, just buzz it down. 
 

I do hate the rolling around on the ground and acting injured when you’re barely touched, but that’s harder to get out of the game in my opinion. Only solution I can think of is to stop the clock on injuries or have refs actually add on the real injury time. That would at least eliminate faking injuries to waste time, but doesn’t eliminate faking injury to try to lure the ref into giving a card to the opposition.

[nfitz]

18 minutes ago, archer21 said:

Only solution I can think of is to stop the clock on injuries or have refs actually add on the real injury time.

Or do what they do in Rugby, and if they are on the ground, have medical enter the pitch while play continues - unless it looks really very serious.

With the combination of the player having to come off, and that they are a man short as soon as they are lying on the ground, it would significantly decrease diving, and speed up the game a bit.

[El Diego]

I think there are two things that are unique to soccer that contribute to a lot to these "dark arts". The first is that yellow and red cards are so impactful that getting your opponent booked is a large part of the meta. If a player gets a red card, his team is permanently short handed. I may be incorrect, but I think soccer is the only sport that has this penalty. It is an insane advantage. Even yellow cards are a large advantage as players have to play less aggressively else they risk basically losing the game for their team single handedly by getting another yellow. Given this is a feature of the sport, it is no wonder that players will exaggerate and sometimes straight up fake fouls.

Soccer is the only sport that I watch where if a player goes down I wonder "Is he actually hurt?" There is no real incentive to fake injury in any other sport. Sure, in hockey you can sell a hook or slash to get a powerplay, and in basketball you can flop to gain possession and/or get a player into foul trouble, but doing so, and faking injury, is not really a part of the meta. And in those sports if a player is ejected their team doesn't go down a man. Many times a player that gets two yellows and sent off, there is no reason to actually eject the guy, and less reason to put his team down a player permanently and essentially decide that they can no longer win the game. Yellow cards can be given for many innocuous things, the punishment is no proportionate. The solution is simple: powerplays/sin bins.

The other thing is the continuous clock. Because of this, teams will try to kill the game by slowing it down by staying down for extended periods of time when they are not injured. If the clock stopped when the ball is not in play, there would be no incentive to stay down so long, except to break up the rhythm of play (which would still happen, mind you).

Look, I get selling fouls. I get taking a minute to compose yourself after getting hit. I get sneaky tactics to slow down the other team. I do all these things when I play and I get upset when my teammates play too proud. But when a legitimate strategy is to target the other team for cards, get in the ref's face about giving yellows, scream at the ref to send off a booked player who makes a ticky tack foul, fall over with zero contact, or stay down for minutes on end when you were barely touched because there is 20 minutes left and your team is winning... I don't find that to be a fun or accurate test of who is a better team. I don't blame the players so much as I blame how the rules are set up, and how the game has been refereed for so long that these things have become an accepted fabric of the game.