...and this one is final. The better team won. I just wish they had played that way offensively for the full time.
Speak for yourself, that was a fabulous game. Australia was fortunate at the end, they really backed off their game and looked to have paid. Unbelievable work by De Vanna on the equalizer. Glad I stayed up for this one.
Australia is the cardiac kids. That was some game. Should be interesting to see their next game. Really nice looking team
I'm pretty much wired after that game. I wish there were a chance either of the next two games could be as exciting as this one.
That was one hell of a match. I feel sorry for Canada. How long will it be before the first "Fire Pellerud, bring back Hooper!!!" post?
[anal pedant] Did they win or did they draw? [/anal pedant] 2:2 final. Australia through to a likely meeting with Brasil.
From a tournament perspective, Canada's good goal called back against Norway was the difference between advancing or not. That being said, Australia is also a deserving 1/4 finalist.
Very entertaining but not so good technically, that's what I meant. Australia has a good chance against Brazil, though, in my opinion.
Canada played a great game with superb passing, lots of heart, concentration and desire. One of the best games have seen them play. A tie game in world cup competition is a good result, but here it counted for not enough against a good Australian team. Tancredi has been a revelation, where were you girl?
Hello Everyone: Well, I don't know that I would bring back Hooper but Pellerud's "Boot and Run" tactic should be shelved. Especially if thats all you have in the play book so to speak. It's hard for Sinclair and company to get and possess the ball when it is being sprayed all over the field as was the case today. For the most part the Canadian Women couldn't string 3 passes together and ultimately paid the price against Australia. On the day, Were the Aussies clearly better? Overall, I would say yes. How many "Route One" teams are in the last eight? I can't recall any of the last eight thumping the ball up the field willy nilly like the Canadians continually did today. For me it was a frustrating game, especially the first half, to watch as the Canadian squad has some very talented players and could have put the game away with a little bit of creativity. Soooo.... then, it must fall on Pellerud's shoulders. Trying to defend a one goal lead is a daunting task when you have to do it for ninety plus minutes and you spend the majority of that time chasing. It's always nice to get that early goal but, in this case, it may have been too early and ultimately Canada's undoing. Shame really.
You can't say that. Had it been Australia needing a win to advance, you can bet the game would have unfolded much differently after it was 1-1, the Aussies would not have sat back the way they did only needing a draw. The difference between advancing or not was giving up a goal in stoppage time.
I wasn't as impressed by Canada today as you were. Canada was in the match because Australia allowed them to be in the match. Australia's defense did not impress me. If Canada were able to sustain possession, they would have been able to exploit that. Instead, the Aussie midfield dominated and did not allow Canada to reach their attacking third for much of the match. The first Canadian goal came from bad defending and the second goal came from Australia sitting back after getting their first goal. Canada's style of play was relatively one dimensional today, but they were playing like a Norway or Denmark and that doesn't suit them. In this match, a draw was as good as a victory for the Aussies. Australia was definitely the better team and consistently put pressure on the Canadians. Canada was lucky Australia wasn't able to score sooner. The stoppage time goal by Australia proved to me that the Aussies were much more capable offensively in this match. I know some will consider the fact that a defender scored the last goal as proof that Australia was all in at that point, but throughout the entire match Australia was the better team and didn't allow Canada to do much. McLeod may have been the MVP for Canada.
The US plays a "Route 1" style only when Abby is in the match. I wish we could have seen less Abby in the WWC. Since we weren't able to put away teams, that wasn't an option. And there is the Catch-22.
And you would have said what if Canada had of won? Australia needs to change its style? Actually, I agree with your sentiments. Canada gives up possession too frequently and too cheaply. It's not that the hyper-direct game doesn't produce goals against quality defenders - Canada scores as many goals against top 10 teams as pretty much anyone. The problem is that Canada's poor passing kills their momentum and allows the other team to control the pace of the game using half the effort that the Canadians expend chasing the ball. The future of the CWNT is a real concern. CSA is in shambles and there is not enough money to do things right. Most of Canada's budget to prepare for the WWC came from an 'Angel Investor' who could just turn off the tap whenever he wants. The CSA just turned down an invitation to hold the CONCACAF women's Oly trials due to budget concerns - so the trials will go to a 'rich' Cenral American' country. As for Pellerud, he has another year left on his contract and then he's gone - he'd be crazy to stay on under the circumstances.
You make a good point - it's impossible to prove what would have happened if 'X' happened. That being said, there is no way to prove that Australia would have beaten Canada if the Norway goal had been counted - as it should have. Maybe the Canada-Australia game would have still ended in a tie and it would be Canada going through.
Actually my comments and yours could have been applied to the other group matches as well. Canada's direct route football actually took a toll on some key players. Sinclair and Lang in particular were often gased after 50 or 60 minutes from having to chase and gain possesion. If Canada had won? I would have said the Aussies would have been unlucky. Their style of play was rather refreshing (so why change?) having not seen them play in a while. They played with flare, pace and panache ( if I can use that word!!!). They're not Brazil though, it should be an interesting match. Canada impressed during WC2003 but not so this WC2007 IMO. Too much of the "Dump and Chase" to borrow a hockey phrase. cheers, papasa90
You could also say what if pigs flew and Kelly Smith and Abby Wambach had emigrated to Canada as children. The situation was what it was, Canada knew what they had to do, and had it in the palm of their hand in the 92nd minute. If anything, I think Australia only needing a draw may have worked in your favor, they really backed off after getting the equalizer at ones after pounding you for 53 minutes and 29 seconds. I know the ending had to really gut Canadian supporters, but I doubt anyone on the team is reflecting on the disallowed goal against Norway - just lamenting why DeVanna and Salisbury had to make big time plays when they did.
This is all beating on a dead horse, but it would be fun to watch the USA fans react to a good goal called back against England - especially if it resulted in the USA going home. I doubt the reaction would be so casual.