Friendly - Canada vs Uruguay - Tuesday, September 27th - 12 pm Eastern / 9 am Pacific

[mpg_29]

I think the possession in this game was a bit of a mirage. I haven't watched Uruguay play recently but they seemed content to sit back for pretty much the entire game. They didn't really play with a lot of intensity imo(perhaps not wanting to risk injuries). It was almost like playing a stronger version of Costa Rica's style. Not sure how to draw too many conclusions out of this when it comes to other opponents.

I feel like if Davies and Adekugbe were able to play on opposite sides we would probably have some the most formidable wingbacks in the tournament as both can really close down players.

Layrea looked rusty/out of sync....which kinda sucks because he was vital player in WCQ imo.

Buchanan looks threatening when he gets the ball out wide. He seems able to beat a lot of defenders one-on-one.

I think Larin and David have opposite styles/strengths which has always made me question whether it makes sense to put them on the field at the same time. Larin always seemed to me like he is mostly an aerial threat from crosses where as David seems like he scores a lot from through balls up the middle. In other words if balls aren't played up through the middle David struggles...and if good crosses aren't being sent in Larin struggles. That's probably an oversimplification but how I see it.

[sose]

54 minutes ago, VinceA said:

On some level we play better without Davies. I hope we figure that out.

I thought he was one of the best players on the pitch in the first half.  Only in the last 20 mins when he was trying to do too much did he look like he was out of sync with the rest of the team.

[DeRo_Is_King]

26 minutes ago, Floortom said:

Surprised at the negativity. There was nothing particularly surprising or discouraging for me. Uruguay is clearly a much better squad. We have too many guys on our squad who just arent close to the level needed. Lets be realistic here.

That being said, we were not run off the pitch or embarrassed. We created some legitimately good chances. TBH I prefer that 2-0 loss, where we showed some ability to be threatening, than a performance where we entirely bunkered and squeaked out a nil-nil draw or 1-0 moral victory loss. It's a friendly after all. 

I think it depends on what you're hoping to achieve. I could hear it in Herdman and Miller's voices after the game that, although a good performance, there is work to be done. This is an ambitious team, and losing 2-0 is not what they're looking for. The fortunate part is this result means nothing. Their opportunity to shock the world at the WC is still intact. 

[clamlinguine]

7 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Herdman and players like Davies who has been a 4/10 today. 

He's done this many times for us already. We were actually good without him. He does not have the rank to be given this sort of freedom to make constant errors and hurt the team this way.

Too bad our press is too soft to say what has to be said.

Amazing that 7 people would like this comment. Way out of line.

7 hours ago, dyslexic nam said:

We saw the same thing from Davies in the Edmonton games - I think he hears all the hype and feels the pressure to be the primary difference make.   Unfortunately when he tries to do too much he often ends up being ineffective. 

Omg man...did you see what Mexico did to us as soon as the danger of AD was taken off the field? We were completely over run. It was a miracle we held on.

[dyslexic nam]

1 minute ago, clamlinguine said:

Omg man...did you see what Mexico did to us as soon as the danger of AD was taken off the field? We were completely over run. It was a miracle we held on.

I think that had more to do with the Mexicans going into high gear and pushing for the goal(s) that would give them World Cup qualifying points - not a single substitution on our part.  The fact is that he was ineffective in attack for a lot of his time on the pitch in those games and that was clearly a result of him trying to do far too much by himself - something we saw again today at certain key points in the game.  

It isn’t sacrilegious to criticize Davies when his play warrants it.  In fact I think it is that kind of deification that results in him trying to single-handedly manufacture a positive result because he feels like that is the expectation.  

[rightback]

6 hours ago, BearcatSA said:

Regardless of what happens in his next two club matches, if Henry is healthy, he is in the squad ahead of Waterman.  I was hoping we'd see him in that second half today but I think that his being left on the bench is a pretty good indicator imo.

Have you seen Henry lately? I'd pick Waterman.

[Ottawafan]

Extremely pleased with the way Canada played today. I’d rather lose 2-0 and play the way we did than to win and play poorly. In the end a lot to build on from today. 

[clamlinguine]

16 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

I think that had more to do with the Mexicans going into high gear and pushing for the goal(s) that would give them World Cup qualifying points - not a single substitution on our part.  The fact is that he was ineffective in attack for a lot of his time on the pitch in those games and that was clearly a result of him trying to do far too much by himself - something we saw again today at certain key points in the game.  

It isn’t sacrilegious to criticize Davies when his play warrants it.  In fact I think it is that kind of deification that results in him trying to single-handedly manufacture a positive result because he feels like that is the expectation.  

You agree with me. As soon as AD was removed from the game Mexico was able to fearlessly go into high gear. I saw it, I knew it would happen, and sure as ****, it did.

His hero runs are a learning process while he adapts to an attacking style that's better suited to him and Canada. Also they may be a message to other offensive weapons to get their butts in gear. As long as AD is making hero runs, the opposition is going to be cautious.

[Shway]

5 minutes ago, Ottawafan said:

Extremely pleased with the way Canada played today. I’d rather lose 2-0 and play the way we did than to win and play poorly. In the end a lot to build on from today. 

Hmm..I rather win poorly. 

But to correct your statement, “id rather lose 2-0 and play the way we did than bunker down and lose.”

[ECW]

1 hour ago, sose said:

I thought he was one of the best players on the pitch in the first half.  Only in the last 20 mins when he was trying to do too much did he look like he was out of sync with the rest of the team.

He was but we were ineffective overall. Those two things are related. 

[BearcatSA]

10 minutes ago, rightback said:

Have you seen Henry lately? I'd pick Waterman.

Then why not give him the final 20-25 minutes today to see if he had the chops to play against this calibre of forward play?   He would also have been playing along club back line mates, so that familiarity would have given him a boost coming in.

[Ottawafan]

20 minutes ago, Shway said:

Hmm..I rather win poorly. 

But to correct your statement, “id rather lose 2-0 and play the way we did than bunker down and lose.”

In a friendly less than two months out from the WC? 

[Gian-Luca]

Note to Herdman - taking one of those opportunities wouldn't have had us "winning" on the day. We would need to have taken three, since we gave up two in the first half against historically the best defensive team in the whole world (unless you want to count Italy as such, but they haven't been that the past 15 years). It's also more difficult to score against a team that is bunkering because they have a 2-0 lead. Yes, the decision making in the final third could have been better and I did think we got screwed with the call that led to the first goal, but the second goal we conceded was far too easy and probably more concerning than not scoring against a bunkering Uruguayan team. Even the first goal was set up by Piette giving the ball away needlessly (which he did far too many times in the first half) leading to the Uruguayan attack in the first place.

As such, I can understand being disappointed in losing and yes, we have to learn where are gaps are (which was surely the point of playing a game against teams of this calibre), but I'm not sure I agree with where he's pointing the finger.

[Gian-Luca]

Bernier's reaction:

 

[SpecialK]

23 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said:

Bernier's reaction:

 

Bernier said it - Davies getting pulled out to get the ball and not taking on guys one on one. This why having a solid experience creative midfielders is so important, so they can get Davies the ball in the right spots. Taking off the pressure, so Davies doesn’t have too feel like he has to be superman out there. Plus having another threat out there is a great thing to have. Kone came on and it there was more creativity but again it wasn’t against Uruguay‘s top guys and not the full game. 

[gator]

7 minutes ago, SpecialK said:

Bernier said it - Davies getting pulled out to get the ball and not taking on guys one on one. This why having a solid experience creative midfielders is so important, so they can get Davies the ball in the right spots. Taking off the pressure, so Davies doesn’t have too feel like he has to be superman out there. Plus having another threat out there is a great thing to have. Kone came on and it there was more creativity but again it wasn’t against Uruguay‘s top guys and not the full game. 

This is where Osorio's absence was really felt, he always has the potential to unlock the best players and is a goal scoring threat himself!

[SpecialK]

4 minutes ago, gator said:

This is where Osorio's absence was really felt, he always has the potential to unlock the best players and is a goal scoring threat himself!

I agree, the question is three things, how hurt is he? How fit is he ? Is he a liability with being one hit away from getting knocked out of the World Cup? 

[RJB]

We were done in by two set pieces and looked dangerous at times.  I think that if that's a competitive game it's a frustrating loss that you would have liked to have gotten a point out of.  As a friendly, it's a good game that we can take lots from.

[GasPed]

30 minutes ago, gator said:

This is where Osorio's absence was really felt, he always has the potential to unlock the best players and is a goal scoring threat himself!

Or, you know who....

[Obinna]

The result would have been nice, but I am more pleased by the performance. I know stats don't win games, but we played them pretty even and they had two moments of quality that made the difference.

It was a Uruguay that was missing Araujo, Cavani, Giminez, and Godin, maybe a few others you can debate I guess, but aside from that it was a strong side. We were missing Hutchinson, Osorio, and Wotherspoon. We were closer to full strength than they were, but this side was better than the one which drew the USA back in the summer. That side was B+ and the side today I would say was an A-

Our side was an A selection. Can't give it an A+ without Hutch and Oso. 

[Cadeau]

I'm pleased with the game. I think Borjan and Davies need a talk from Herdman about their egos and about keeping it simple. Others have said it, Im gonna say it too: the team has played better without Davies.

[Sal333]

15 hours ago, Corazon said:

Player Takeaways

Johnston - Thought he looked out of his element in the first half but a much better 2nd half.  Obviously quite clearly outjumped on Nunez header.

 

Hoilett - Unfortunately he is not our answer for RWB.  I appreciate his ability to play anywhere across the field but we need to figure out this position because Hoilett was near flawless in his appearances for Canada in qualfying.

 

I now understand why Nancy uses Johnston as a RWB in Montreal and not as a LCB. That goal by Nunez was not the first time Johnston left his man unmarked. A while before that goal Nunez was left alone in front of Borjan. It was when Nunez shot the ball over the net. Again it was Johnston who did not cover his man. There were a couple of other times Johnston was loose on his defensive coverage. Nancy prefers Waterman as LCB in Montreal. The kid has height, is good in aerial duels and - don't shoot me for saying it - I realize now is better defensively than Johnston. I think Herdman prefers Johnston because he is more mobile than Waterman but I think it's time he may have to rethink that plan or at least talk to Nancy about his reasoning for Johnston at RWB and Waterman at LCB.

Also, I think the team - especially Davies - missed Buchanan. Uruguay was double and triple teaming Davies. They could afford to do it because they didn't have to worry about their left wing. If Buchanan was playing at his usual spot on the right side, I think Davies would have seen fewer Uruguayans trying to stop him. That was part of the problem. Another problem was I know Davies is an elite talent but he was trying to do everything himself. Not good. He has to learn to use his Canadian teammates the way he uses his Bayern ones. Look to make passes. And for the love of God get him away from those corners. He is terrible.

And my final comment I think our attackers had a serious case of the jitters. The whole team was a little nervous but the forwards were almost paralyzed. They were slow to run to spaces, slow to retrieve balls and even slower to release their passes or shots.

All problems that can be fixed.

[Sal333]

15 hours ago, dyslexic nam said:

With the challenges we are seeing at RWB, anyone else wishing Brault-Guillard had been given some sort of a look during qualifying?  

Move Johnston to RWB. I was not impressed with his defensive coverage today. He plays that position in Montreal after all. Use Waterman as the LCB.

[DeRo_Is_King]

7 hours ago, Gian-Luca said:

Bernier's reaction:

 

Bernier talked about trying new players -- specifically, Waterman. I agree with him, but it depends on context as well. Qatar was the right game to try a different lineup.

I get why Herdman wanted our strongest 11 out against Uruguay since many of those players will be starting the WC. But if you play a B side vs Qatar, you might find some hidden gems.

It's so unfortunate that we did not get to watch Waterman, Kennedy or Cornelius, or get to see much of our other attacking players. Could we really not afford to start Ugbo vs Qatar? Really? Corbeanu gets 10 mins the whole camp. Koleosho gets nothing. But Brym?... He plays when he shouldn't even be on the team. 

[jhoops__]

10 hours ago, dyslexic nam said:

I think that had more to do with the Mexicans going into high gear and pushing for the goal(s) that would give them World Cup qualifying points - not a single substitution on our part.  The fact is that he was ineffective in attack for a lot of his time on the pitch in those games and that was clearly a result of him trying to do far too much by himself - something we saw again today at certain key points in the game.  

It isn’t sacrilegious to criticize Davies when his play warrants it.  In fact I think it is that kind of deification that results in him trying to single-handedly manufacture a positive result because he feels like that is the expectation.  

Criticism is one thing but saying we’re better off without him is asinine…