http://hochi.yomiuri.co.jp/soccer/world/news/20120322-OHT1T00295.htm Five Sky Blue players trained (trial?) with INAC in Okinawa. Apparently they liked Rebecca Moros, and the report claimes they may give an official offer after the Okinawa training camp. Apparently she's already got an offer from Duisberg. However she said INAC is her first choice (it could be just a lip service though). I didn't know who she was so I googled her, and who's that girl next to her in the second picture? I assume this was from Washington Freedom days. http://admin.womensprosoccer.com/dc/photos/Players/Rebecca%20Moros/moros-rebecca-action.aspx
The members for Kirin Challenge Cup were announced: http://www.jfa.or.jp/national_team/topics/2012/95.html
Another report on this. http://www.daily.co.jp/soccer/2012/03/23/0004906268.shtml It looks like she's not a member of Sky Blue although she played for them in Kagoshima. Also the owner of INAC admitted that she's in Japan for a trial. Moros says "All the players who trained with them today want to play for INAC".
Sasaki's comments about new members: Uetsuji can deliver good passes calmly under the pressure. Osafune is the fastest among DFs. Kawamura is high, and Minamiyama can do everything. About GKs: Fukumoto is decent. We don't appreciate Kaihori very much now. We have to make them improve more.
It's weird to ask, but what does "decent" exactly mean? I ask this because English-Japanese dictionary says that it means "so-so good" and "very good". Yamaguchi hasn't done anything recently, and Iwashimizu is still on the way of recovery.
It kinda depends on the expectations. "Kawasumi shoots but Fukumoto makes a decent save" means that Fukumoto is considered a goalkeeper good enough to save these kind of shots, and that she has lived up to her reputation in this case. "Kawasumi with a decent shot, but saved by Fukumoto" means that the shot was ok, but also that she could have done better. If you just say "Fukumoto is a decent GK" it usually means she's "good enough", which might or might not be praise depending on what you say about other GK's at the same time. Take this with a grain of salt though, English isn't my native language. Edit: "decent" also implies a certain level of reliability and consistency. You wouldn't call an outstanding GK with lots of off-days "decent".
Thanks. And if so, I'm sorry that I seem to have made a wrong word choice. Sasaki says about Fukumoto, "not so bad."
The team is full of surprises to my eyes..... First I agree with AndG that the word "decent" does not quite fit. It means "OK". Perhaps the word "competent" - or even better, "capable" would fit. But also I wonder what is meant by saying he doesnt "appreciate Kaihori very much now" - is he definitely saying she is #2, and is he saying that she has been seen to be weaker than he thought, or that her abilities have declined? The last sentence, about improvement, makes perfect sense - all Miho has to learn is when to come out. I didnt know that Iwashimizu has to recover from injury (did that happen in Portugal?), and I also see that Sawa is out of the line-up, I assume for the same reason? Perhaps she has a serious problem? Also we had one thing wrong, instead of trying multiple FWs, Sasaki has TEN (10) DFs listed! Good to see Ariysohi survive despite her PK incident.
Unepomme, can you post the link to what Sasaki said? I'm kind of curious what he said about my favorite GK in Japanese.
Another tall one is Kawamura, I think this would be her first time making the team? I dont remember her at all from the youth teams. Of course as a Belle fan am excited that Nakano has a chance.
I don't know about Unepomme, but this is what I read. http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20120323-01096623-gekisaka-socc I would go for something like: "I have no issues with Fukumoto, but I'm not satisfiled with Kaihori's form." Obviously he does not give away who he thinks current No.1 goal keeper is in his mind. As for Sawa, INAC reported that there has not been any progress on Sawa's situation. She's not in the state to do full traning yet. That's why they sent Sawa back to Kobe while the team remain in Okinawa.
Someone would say that I shouldn't bother to answer to a person who previously seemed to refuse dialogue, but since now suddenly I get a "real" answer and I am an obstinate advocate of dialogue itself, i'll try just once more to claim my points in this discussion, although admittedly it's a possibly already compromised discussion... Sorry, but that's the exact problem I had with you lately. It seems to me that I always tried to answer to you about the real matter: the only moment when I said that you were here "with a wrong attitude" (not a personal attack, in my eyes: just a way to make you reflect about what you were doing) was when you didn't answer to my remarks at all, and just said that I was a whiner. You'd probably call that an "ad hominem" argument. I was not whining. I was saying something you didn't answer to, cause you preferred to claim that I was whining. I was perfectly ok with all the previous discussion, I critiqued you for your attitude just because you had critiqued me for being a "whiner"... Talking about faulty arguments, you are using one since the beginning of this discussion: I am sorry that I don't know its exact name in the classification of arguments, but basically it's "attributing to someone the words or the intentions of anyone else (even vaguely) related with him". You keep talking here as this thread was an only and solidly packed entity and as anyone of us was responsible for what anyone else said. We mostly agree with each other, yes, and I feel something like a sense of friendship for most persons posting on this thread, but we are single persons, everyone with his thoughts and opinions, and it's not like we consult each other before and after posting here. I know it's easier, and also more rewarding for yourself, presenting the situation as it was: "you alone vs a bunch of people all joined against you" (the "comfortable boys' club", as you call it), but it's not like this. And you haven't the right to say that "we all" called you a dick, because it was something that a single person did, and, although I am happy that many persons on this thread did support me, I don't necessarily agree with what Blue_Scholar said: maybe yes and maybe not, but i'd like that when you answer me you answer me, and when you answer someone else you answer someone else. I didn't say that you were a dick and Blue-Scholar didn't said that you were confused because you were angry. Now I don't want to claim that you should write a different answer for everyone of us on this forum, but treating us as a single entity and not as individual persons it's a faulty argument and a way of blurring the edges, so everything feels the same. Now, back to the subject: first of all, it's simply false that I acted based on what i had "read" on the Ando's fans blog. I acted mainly based on a fact that I had witnessed with my eyes and that wasn't so hard to correctly interpret for someone who had watched it. If you read carefully this thread, you'll find that I began talking about this fact way before the "discovery" of Ando's words on that blog. All the situation was quite easy to piece together: it was obvious that only some quite serious insult could have generated such a reaction from a fair and quiet player like Ando and this kind of protective attitude from her team-mate Popp, who was, at the same time, scolding Elsing with an outraged expression, and trying to keep Ando calm and avoid physical contact between the two players. By watching the scene you could easily tell that only some very personal remark or a racial remark could have caused that. So I had my clear opinion about the fact way before "google-translating", but I had been quite general about the subject because I had no way to know what exactly had been said to Ando. I am well aware that Google-translator it's not really a way to translate a text, from whatever language, Japanese or not, but it's a way to get a rough idea about the subject of the text, 'cause it can traslate single words that, summing up, can give you a reasonable picture of the general subject. So, yes, I used google-traslator, but as a way to get a confirm of an idea that was already formed and quite clear in my mind and that was based of witnessing a video and knowing some basics about human nature. And if that text contained words that clearly pieced together with my hypothesis ("discriminate against Japan", "insulting a country", "protection", etc.), yes, that for me was enough of a confirmation that my idea was correct, and I can't see what's wrong with that. And although I admit that I said something alike "there is not much doubt about what Elsing was saying to Kozue", I'd stress that my expression it's still quite cautious ("there is not much doubt" doesn't mean "it's now sure", there is an attenuation) and anyway I didn't quote any words that I knew very well couldn't be quoted from a google-translation. Anyway, just for the good of the discussion, let's admit that I presented my opinions as facts. It's seems quite important to me, instead. It means that I wasn't just foolishing around, basing myself on a google-translation only, but that I was making reasonable remarks, so reasonable that they were revealed to be close to the facts, as you seem to admit. In my opinion, my assumptions were completely reasonable and I still don't see very well how they could have been seen as potentially offensive, if not for Elsig, who anyway deserved to be criticized even before and without the complete info about the incident. Anyway if with my premature assumptions I somehow offended you or anyone else, I publicly apologize. I want to stress that I believe that I hadn't be unrespectful and that I am not sure about how what i said about the incident, even with uncomplete info, could have been perceived as so inconsiderate or offensive, but I can't question feelings, and, if you felt offended, I publicly and officially apologize for my "hurry" to judge the facts. I apologize also to any other people that could have felt offended by that, although I'd like to know how can you be so sure to represent "the quiet majority of japanese people". I am not used to ask for identity card to people I am discussing with on a thread, but I can't help but wonder who are you to be so sure that the majority of about 120.000.000 of japanese people stand by your calls. Anyway, let's say I offended 120.000.000 of japanese. I apologize 120.000.000 times, and I hope this, at least, is enough to close the incident. If someone on this thread wasn't interested to this discussion, I am sorry guys, but I was feeling the need to answer. Now I have to go out, but I'll be back later to discuss about the Kirin Cup nominations, a discussion I am eager to dive into. ^__^
blissett, you are only validating someone who doesnt seem to know who Andou is and has never shown a word of interest in the Nadeshiko, the L-league or other women's football. And, by your post, you are filling the board with another topic that almost everyone else here has ignored. So, if I were you, I would simply delete it.
Seems pretty straightforward. But I don't get this at all. Is this about reducing the number of players?
Usually three goal keepers are selected with this size of squad, but this time only two goal keepers were included in Fukumoto and Kaihori. Sasaki is explaining the reason behind it. He says: "We know what we get from Yamago. She also has a (goal keeper) coach in her team (Urawa). We want to concentrate on these two for their improvement. Therefore we included only two this time." It doesn't make much sense - he can add another player if he wants to for Kirin Challenge. I think he's answering with careful wording but this is my take on his comments: With the size of squad for London, it's likely there will be only two goal keepers. So not much point including three goal keepers for Kirin Challenge if he's made up his mind which two he will take. I think it's pretty clear it will be Fukumoto and Kaihori despite of his careful wording. I think he just didn't want to say explicitly he's dropping Yamago. She's been a fantastic servant for Nadeshiko for all those struggling years. And for sure, she herself is still fighting for a spot. She rightly gets the respect she deserves.
If you just say "Fukumoto is a decent GK" it usually means she's "good enough", which might or might not be praise depending on what you say about other GK's at the same time. Take this with a grain of salt though, English isn't my native language. Edit: "decent" also implies a certain level of reliability and consistency. You wouldn't call an outstanding GK with lots of off-days "decent".[/QUOTE] To clarify a bit more, in this context "decent" can also be "acceptable but not preferred" or "acceptable with reservations". Hope this helps.
Ooooh now I get it. I didn't know there were supposed to be three GK's in this selection, so I was wondering what else 人数を絞る could mean. Thanks for clearing that up.
USWNT visit Miyagi... [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhV68VvqZyY&feature=g-all-u&context=G20a0356FAAAAAAAAAAA"]US NT Members visit Miyagi - YouTube[/ame]
Just for the clarification, it was not so much that there was a plan to include 3 goal keepers for this selection, but traditionally there are three goal keepers (it's quite a big squad 23? ). The world cup squad was 22 and included 3 goal keepers. Anyway, you got the idea. As we are on this subject, I'm a bit nervous about taking only two goal keepers to London (Sasaki has not confirmed it but it appears that way). If one of the goal keeper gets injured during the tournament or sent off and suspended, you only have one. So they have to play with no sub goalie rest of the tournament (or at least next game in case where the goalie gets straight red). Now that's a disastrous situation to be in. I saw a pundit saying they can afford to take only two because they have Sakaguchi . He looked serious when he said that. What do people think about taking only two? It's a bit of risk, don't you think?
Well you know the Olympics is just 18, right? I cant recall a 3rd-choice GK ever playing in a major tournament. I think bringing fewer players in other areas would be a more real risk.
I agree that it's risky, but I guess that, with the 18 players' limit, it's a risk you have to take. Bringing a third GK just to have her probably sit on the bench (or worse) for all the tournament, while you're struggling to decently rotate and substitute other players, isn't something that a team can really afford, in my opinion (and that's especially true for a team like Japan, that still hasn't found the perfect MF-FW formula and that showed before that can somehow adapt to the circumstances by using different players). Put it that way: I prefer to bring a substitute that can cover all defensive-roles + defensive MF, or different sides of the FW line + wing MF, than a third GK, that can cover just a role. I agree that it's a key role, that just can't remained uncovered, but, since injuries/suspensions can happen to all of the team, I prefer getting multi-roles subs than a third GK, even if it's a risk. It's a risk worth running, that's what I think. (I also think that teams should be allowed to bring 21 members' squads, as at WWC , but that's another question. Since they have to be 18, I guess you have to get along with 2 GK if you don't want to worsen the ability of your team to adapt to different situations). I guess the Sakaguchi argument is a joke. Don't want to say she would be bad for sure, but you don't cover your third GK spot with one of your best MFs. I am not even sure if you are actually allowed to do that. Do GKs have to be specifically listed as GK, or whatever player in the team can really play in the goal as a starter? When the match is on, everyone can play in the goal if needed, but you can also start a match with no-matter-what player of your squad as a GK? Anyway, that's what I think. And i am not sure I understand how harsh exactly Sasaki was with Kaihori.. there were quite different translations, some of them quite terrible for her, some more soft...