Jump to content

GC: Canada vs The USA - Sunday, July 18th, 5pm Eastern / 2pm Pacific - Kansas City


Recommended Posts

Can someone explain this too me please. We’re down by 1, we need someone that is dynamic cocky wants the ball someone with a lot of skill, someone that will have a go. Herdman brings in pasher, ( he played well but not the player you need). Maybe I missed in the past posts, but haven’t seen anyone talk about him. Did everyone forget … we have a young dynamic cocky premiership calibre player in the making sitting on the fucking bench! Who has basically scored every time he comes on. Everyone knows where’s Waldo well…. Where’s Theo Corbeanu??????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gian-Luca said:

Well Tajon himself disagrees with you since he took responsibility for the goal after the game and admitted he was asleep on the play. I don’t disagree that others on the team contributed to that goal - when a team is scored upon 20 seconds in there has to be a series of errors - my point is that all while is overall play continues to be super encouraging, he was culpable on the goal and will hopefully use it as a learning experience even for later in this tourney.

 

That goal and the responsibility of a LWB is almost identical to the Haiti winning goal in 2019 when Davies lost his target man who dashed from behind and scored. Hopefully they both learned from it and keep that in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Obinna said:

On the VAR thing, I wonder what's behind not even taking a look. I mean, how do you explain that? It is really beyond belief. Is there a way for teams to launch formal complaints for that kind of thing? I know that's a little over the top considering the circumstances, but what if this was WCQ? Do we just have to live it? Is there any recourse for officials not following protocol? Were they within their right to not check? The clear and obvious standard is for the VAR decision, not the decision to check VAR, right? More questions than answers at the moment, but I feel that if the decision to check VAR is subjective (seems to be based on this), what's the point of having the technology?

Someone maybe better able to explain VAR than me but I thought it wasn't the ref's job to actually check. The VAR team automatically check all such incidents in the 18 yard box for penalties.  So I expect they reviewed it and in their opinion there was "no clear and obvious error" in the decision taken by the ref.  And they communicated that to the ref probably when they were dealing with the injuries on the pitch.  If he signaled to go look at the video, it would have meant the VAR team thought it was a penalty and he was sent to verify it.  But for that to happen, the team would have thought it was a "clear and obvious" mistake.  I suspect that when they reviewed it, they thought there wasn't a "clear and obvious" mistake.  Not sure how they came to that conclusion...maybe they felt Laryea's contact on Zimmerman caused him to fall which then was the cause of Laryea's fall.  But then you would have thought that wouldn't have resulted in a corner but a foul awarded against Laryea for that contact.  But I don't think you can change that as that is not reviewable.  Or they thought the two players collided legally but Zimmerman fell over and then Laryea tripped over him which is not a penalty.  I could see that but what I saw was Zimmerman lunging when he fell which to me is different that players colliding legally and one falling over and then the other falling over him incidentally.  

The ref himself can ask for it to be reviewed but that is unusual.

Edited by An Observer
grammar correction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Obinna said:

The other thing too is the majority of pundits and fans on both sides of the boarder think this was a pen. That is why it is hard to believe that the ref, the ARs and the VARs all felt there was no need to double check, despite the long injury break. Weird that everyone else watching thought otherwi$e....

The funniest thing is that it could have been a PK for either the tackle (literally) or the handball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada loses to the USA...definitely expected this result to be honest. Finishing 2nd in the group was always goin to be realistic and now that it is...we face either Costa Rica or Jamaica in the quarters. Well we have to wait to find out our fate and honestly if I'm Canada, who would I rather face in the QF? I would rather face Costa Rica than Jamaica 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CanadaFan123 said:

The funniest thing is that it could have been a PK for either the tackle (literally) or the handball.

Sometimes a picture says a 1000's words. Don't forget the other one 5 mins later when Larin got mauled and thus couldn't get the shot off because he was being pulled back. 

I hate complaining and yes time to move one, but these screen grab pics from my TV are wild, both clearly in the 18. 

 

Screenshot_2021-07-19-08-07-00-603.jpg

Screenshot_2021-07-19-08-06-21-963.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me add one more thing before I shake this one off and move on. In a game such as this where getting to the goal is real tough, you really notice how few players we have with any confidence or danger in their shot from distance. 

Over the past 5 years or so it's really only been Junior and Arfield who have shown they can be a threat from outside the 18, though maybe guys like Eustaquio and Buchanan can be added to the list. For as dangerous as guys like Larin, David, Davies and Cavallini are if you can keep them outside the 18 you're pretty much guaranteed they won't shoot or if they do it's likely to be weak sauce. Then among our midfield you also won't ever really find Osorio, Kaye, Piette or Hutchinson having a meaningful crack at the ball. 

Contrast that to some of what you see with Honduras/Panama/Mexico and it seems like everyone on the field is equipped with the confidence to have a meaningful go and see what happens if better options don't present themselves. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, grigorio said:

Then among our midfield you also won't ever really find Osorio, Kaye, Piette or Hutchinson having a meaningful crack at the ball. 

That's an area of Osorio's game that probably has held him back.  He's not a consistent shooter from reasonable distances outside the p.a. though he has hit a couple of notable strikes over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Gian-Luca said:

This Galindo article contains a quote from Herdman indicating that the Akinola injury sub was "precautionary":

https://www.mlssoccer.com/news/three-canada-takeaways-from-gold-cup-defeat-to-usmnt

As an aside, not sure why Galindo says "Akinola hasn’t been a reliable starter like Larin, which is why the latter is the biggest concern for Herdman."

I mean, this was his first start, and it was cut short after about 20 minutes from a cheap US tackle, maybe wait until at least plays 45 minutes as a starter and is a total disaster before making this judgment?

perhaps he meant a "regular starter" vs "reliable starter" ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morning (afternoon) after thoughts.

Some good

- Impressed by Crepeau, commanding the area, coming for cross against big strong opposition. 

- Miller improved as the game went on and showed his value against the same fast strong opposition.

- Vitoria improved his passing, which was a concern against worse teams.  

- They were sitting back, but we looked okay with 4 at the back, when we went there. 

- Akinola, who I don't get to see a lot, was willing to mix it up and provided good pressure when there. 

- Tajon though he was unable to go past people like in other games, is a handful even to decent opposition. 

- Midfield took control of the game, even missing some key parts.

Some not so good.

- Laryea and Junior especially need to keep playing football and not look to go down first. 

- Our crossing was poor, which is frustrating, especially when our striking option is someone like Cavallini.

- We looked toothless generally and there were half chances even early we missed. 

- Can't start like that every game, as we said in other games, better teams will punish us. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you watch the replay of the first goal, 5 of our back 7 were "culpable" for that goal.  We had both our mids close around the ball carrier. Fraser got deeked out and Piette did not win his tackle. Vitoria was ball watching leaving Johnston to mark Dike and Zardes. Laryea was in la la land having a stroll in a more central area  and leaving his man completely open on the right flank who got the pass. Johnston then had to scramble out wide, an impossible task, the cross came in. Tajon should have been closer to his man and more goal side for sure, but the goal was a defensive team breakdown by at least 5 players. If anyone should wear the goat horns on that goal it probably should be Laryea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kadenge said:

If you watch the replay of the first goal, 5 of our back 7 were "culpable" for that goal.  We had both our mids close around the ball carrier. Fraser got deeked out and Piette did not win his tackle. Vitoria was ball watching leaving Johnston to mark Dike and Zardes. Laryea was in la la land having a stroll in a more central area  and leaving his man completely open on the right flank who got the pass. Johnston then had to scramble out wide, an impossible task, the cross came in. Tajon should have been closer to his man and more goal side for sure, but the goal was a defensive team breakdown by at least 5 players. If anyone should wear the goat horns on that goal it probably should be Laryea.

Lots of responsiblity to go around, for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Gian-Luca said:

Well Tajon himself disagrees with you since he took responsibility for the goal after the game and admitted he was asleep on the play. I don’t disagree that others on the team contributed to that goal - when a team is scored upon 20 seconds in there has to be a series of errors - my point is that all while is overall play continues to be super encouraging, he was culpable on the goal and will hopefully use it as a learning experience even for later in this tourney.

 

Well, I get it and good for him to take responsibility but I would put his contribution to that play below the others.

 

12 hours ago, Ruud said:

Not finishing our chances is why we lost. With David and Davies and others, we make our own luck.  I think it’s fair to critique our finishing and our opening minute with this team.  4 or 5 big chances in front of goal against New England’s keeper.  Nuff said

I don’t think we particularly have to tear down this performance per say. There was lots to like. But, to be fair, we did seem to struggle for ideas when they had packed the box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think our possession was fantastic but I think we should have started to be a bit more direct. Crosses, shots etc

But the one thing that was the most frustrating about that game were the delays.. I know it was hot but the delays, injuries benefited the US laying on the ropes style. To further that, the added time in both halves was a complete joke 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SpursFlu said:

I think our possession was fantastic but I think we should have started to be a bit more direct. Crosses, shots etc

But the one thing that was the most frustrating about that game were the delays.. I know it was hot but the delays, injuries benefited the US laying on the ropes style. To further that, the added time in both halves was a complete joke 

Yeah this is one thing I noticed our plays were often hesitant to cross the ball, which is unfortunate because Cavallini can absolutely get on the end of headers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...