PBP: 2016 FIFA WWC-20 Group A: PNG, BRA, SWE, DPRK

We're going to see what's going to happen tomorrow, but arguably the weakest team of the tournament beyond PNG was Canada. Sure, they were in a very difficult group, including both finalist teams of last WWC at U-17 level, but a record of three losses by 0-5, 1-3 and 0-5 again is difficult to match.

It is possible that Venezuela will end posting a similar result (although the scores, at the moment, are a little lighter), and you can make a case that they're actually the weakest team (again, except PNG, of course), considering that their group was probably easier. No way I'd say that about Ghana, who were able to force a draw vs France, and were ahead of them until 90'+5'! Ghana are a completely respectable team and, when the last match-day of group-stage has yet to be played, they still have qualification for next round in their hands if they win the match vs USA by 2-0 or more.

The reasons why a naton with a good tradition in this sport as Canada sent a so unpresentable team to this U-20 WWC have been debated in multiple threads (mostly, it was due to good players being committed to their local clubs' duties, I guess), but I feel like a team that had made a good impression in most youth tournaments in the last years regressed to being one of the worst teams at all at this World Cup.

 

http://www.fifa.com/u20womensworldc...ws=the-goal-that-rocked-a-nation-2853305.html

 

I've found a website that had a video with the entire unabridged sequence of PNG's goal. As the writer rightfully says, a textbook counter-attack!

I hope FIFA won't tear it down soon, as they use to do. Meanwhile, enjoy:

Quality counterattack! Creating memories that will last a lifetime @Lcole22 #U20WWC pic.twitter.com/8bqcmtEjj1

— Erica Dambach (@EWalsh7) November 20, 2016

 

That was a beauty.
Erica Damback is the head coach of Penn State University women's soccer who won the championship last year.

 

Lots of Canadian players at universities, not so much club.

 

Yes, sorry, I meant University teams, not clubs. Sometimes I make this kind of slip-ups with English, since it's not my native language... In my mind I wanted to talk about university teams, but my mind processed it as they could have been called "clubs".

 

You're absolutely right about Canada being the worst nation in this current World Cup after PNG , but I was wondering how Fleming presence would have changed their performnace ?.... I mean, seeing the last youth tournament, Canada is clearly trying to change their football phylosophy from a fast direct football typical North American to a more slow, controlled, possession based Euro-Japanese one, in this kind of football the most important player is the playmaker as he/she's the one dictating the tempo.
Jessie Fleming was absolutely brilliant in that role , emerging as one the the world most talented young players around ..she has got very high technical abilities and football IQ ESSENTIAL to practice a possession oriented tactics, but not only her as I really appreciated her teammates Sura Yekka and Sarah Kinzner too both with well above average technical abilities and the rest of the team were not bad at all with the ball at their feet and here is Canada's problem.
Everybody wants to play a nice and clean passing game style of football, a Barca's tiki-taka but it could only be done by a team with a large amount of players with above average technique, specially passing and ball control, and above average football IQ, specially movement without the ball, combinasion between three or more players.
Seeing Canada games I immediately had the sensation that those girls wanted to play that way but not having neither technique and IQ to do it they ended up completely confused on the pitch......Imho Canada's staff just like the last U17 WC overrated their own players imposing them a system which is out of reach from their quality.
Only two teams are playing that way actually, Japan and Spain, even France can't because this generation doesn't have players with qualities required to put it into pratice.
France's coach Gilles Eyquem decided to apply a more athletical, high tempo football simply because in the end of the day if you don't have the players for a certain system then you must change that system...

 

By the way quite disappointed by Sweden eliminated in the group stage (European sisterhood except Germany for unknown but strictly footballistic reason.....) but Swedish people don't have to worry the future is bright not only because of Blacktenius or Almqvist (despite her shocking bad tournament) but also gk Holmgren, the absent Bjorn, Anvegard and my fav Angeldal...love her attitude...we will hear again about them in a close future.
For Brazil I was expecting more to be honest, yes they deserved to pass overall but imho Sweden has more potential than them , aside Geyse (who deserved the red card btw), lb Yasmim and excellent cm Gaby Nunes, the rest didn't really looked Brazilian....

 

Don't forget, Holmgren's mistake led to the corner kick, which Brazil scored on. So, Sweden could have and should have won that game.

 

You're right that Canada should have played a system more in tune with the quality of players on the pitch.
In general, Canada doesn't have a very deep pool of players to choose from, even with their full national team.

 

CK from which Sweden scored - should it happen at all? 1. Blakstenius was offside on that action leading to CK wasn't she? and 2. she kicked the ball last, no?

 

That's another thing I really didn't understand about Canada. For whatever reason, you decide not to bring certain players, as Fleming (or they withdraw, for personal reasons, including University football); but why on earth, when you anyway have brought some of the technically more refined players, you don't use them and let them rot on the bench???

I remember Sura Yekka as an excellent player, to the point that she even had caps with Senior Team. So, why she was never started and she was only played in the last 20 minutes vs Nigeria (when the result was already 1-3) and in the second half vs Japan (when they were already two goals behind)?

 

I'm going to watch the whole game and get back to you on that. I only watched portions of it so far.

 

OK, after watching this play a couple times, here's what I saw.
Yes, Blackstenius was off-sides before the corner kick.
However, the last person to knock the ball out of bounds was the Brazilian defender.

I'm not sure of the rules in these situations, but it seems they almost always wait for the offensive player to touch the ball before raising the off-sides flag.
My question is this, should they raise the flag sooner, so as not to put the defender or goalie in a difficult position?

 

Yes they wait until the player becomes active....

I have seen situations where an offside player nearly got badly injured by a defender, who desperately tried to win the ball back. Had the flag gone up earlier the defender wouldn't have even tried to get the ball. It just creates stupid situation. The other typical one is the goalie and the forward clashing at full speed and injuring themselves for nothing.

Buts that's the IFAB decision to make the rules interpretation that way.

 

Yes they should, however it's like shlj said above, ref's often waiting until player becomes active.

 

After just watching the play, I disagree with the AR raising an offside flag earlier. Why? Because there's nothing to call. Being in an offside position is not an infraction. A player must be involved with play AND in an offside position to be offside. By the fundamental nature of the offside law, a player in an offside position has not committed any offense for which a referee needs to make a call until s/he is actively involved in play.

 

In your opinion the flag should've been raised after the challange (Blackstenius vs Julia) or not at all ?

Excerpt froM LotG:

2. Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

• interfering with an opponent by:

• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
• challenging an opponent for the ball or
• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent or
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
or
• gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:

• rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
• been deliberately saved by any opponent

A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage.
A ‘save’ is when a player stops a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area).

 

Sorry. I should have been more clear; I was commenting more on those arguing for an early flag on offside, and not this specific case. In this specific case, not at all, although I can see good reason for someone saying after the challenge.

Under current interpretation, "involved in active play" is interpreted as:
1. interfering with play: actually touching or playing the ball. Julia last plays the ball; I can't tell if Blackstenius even gets a piece of it.
2. gaining an advantage: basically playing a rebound off the crossbar or post or a deliberate save; not relevant here.
or
3. interfering with an opponent: preventing an opponent from playing the ball or obstructing the vision of an opponent; Again Julia plays the ball and was not prevented from doing so. However, preventing an opponent from playing the ball by challenging the opponent for the ball is also interpreted as interfering with an opponent, but again Julia gets pretty much all of the ball and is not prevented from playing it. I would think there would have been some discussion on the headsets though.

EDIT: whoops, I changed my mind mid-post, and edited the beginning to clarify.

 

Ok, now I got it. Although I totally disagree with your interpretation of this situation I would certainly agree with you on that early flag topic. Let's hope that introduction of video playback gonna help to clear at least some of the ref's errors - though it still will depend on ref's take on rules.

 

Like I said in my edit, I actually changed my mind mid-post, convincing myself to go the other direction. Its a close one that I could see go either way because while there is a challenge, is it enough of a challenge that it prevented the opponent from playing the ball? That's what it comes down to, and I can see it argued both ways.