No, no... there are two of us on this thread, some following on gobigred and the others on the Voyageurs thread.... So there are six of us...
i'm sure that'll be tough for canada to swallow to play 87 minutes of soccer w/o giving up a goal to let one in so late. i'm curious to know who was the one who cleared the ball poorly (not that it makes a difference). darn it..that one got away! but i think...the fact we had the US reeling for a bit...good sign. hopefully we'll regroup and kick some swedish butt on sunday! elaine
Of course most of those 15 shots came off the slow passing game the US plays now so the shots were easy to see by Canada's keeper an so quite easy to save for any world class keeper. The one goal, from the report, was off a steal and a quick, unexpected, shot. 70-80 mins of low presure = no goals. 10-20 mins of high presure = one goal. April DO THE MATH!
Congrats Canada! I've noticed the US tends to be flat coming out and then the creativity kicks in when the pressure is at its highest. Thanks to those giving the updates too. Loved it. Now back to work to let people know that I'm not nuts for cheering at my screen!
Here is a very brief game report from USSF: http://www.ussoccer.com/news/fullstory.sps?iNewsid=29111&itype= www.CanadaSoccer.com has a brief one paragraph summary of the match. Both will have full reports to follow.
My understanding is that Aly sat out due to a hamstring pull during the week. They wanted to save her but I guess they needed her today and she came through. Good for her. Someone needs to get Brandi to stop taking the free kicks anywhere in the last third. I wonder when she had her last good one?? Congradulations to Canada, they certainly hang in there against the US.
Thanks for posting the ongoing play and letting those of us without matchtracker the chance to get the game. Seems like, from the flow of comments, that the USA ran very few give-and-go plays. I seem to recall it being more of a staple in 1999 (and even 2000). There's no better way to spring a teammate free with a quick change-of-direction pass -- and the give-and-go is the quintessential quick change-of-direction pass. Is this just me, or does anyone else have this sense? By the way, given that most of the USA regulars started (with the Wagner exception of course), it should be of concern to the USA that it gave up a quick goal to Canada and only tied 1-1. That will trigger an inevitable have-they-caught-up-or-have-we-slowed-down debate, but that is for another thread. I'm just noting the cause for concern six months before WWC 2003.
candian scorer... hey- according to this AP article, canada's scorer was randee hermus. http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news?slug=ap-canada-uswomen&prov=ap&type=lgns looking forward to reading the official game report etc. elaine
Yeah I know. I remember when the US used to play real nice attacking soccer with cutting through balls and good crosses. Now its sorty...eh. Gawd the past games have been soooo boooooooring. Ok I don't mean to blame this on April, but I'm just saying that I really liked the games better in our 4-3-3 system and not the boring diamond. It seems like our entire offensive game is dependant on the person on top of the diamond midfield. And as a result, our system is easy to crack. It's sorta like that one game ('96 olympics vs. Norway) where all the US had to do to shut down the Norwegian offense was to have just one good man marker (Tiffany Roberts) on their playmaker, Hege Riise. I was surprised that Milbrett started today instead of Parlow. I mean, Canada does play the same exact long ball/aggresive style that Norway plays. They do have Norway's old coach...
Isn't the point of the new midfield to crack the bunker? Does it do that? Does it do it better than the old one? I actually don't know, or have an opinion. Just asking for what people think.
I guess this means Mia is healed. I wish we could have watched it on tv, I would have liked to see what Tarpley can do.
No, the point of the new midfield is to "crack the five-woman midfield"...don't ask me how she came up with it, Gebauer...Gabaur (eh, whatever) and Rob Stone tried explaining it to the tv audience during Norway vs USA in Minnesota...Wisconsin...whatever. In my opinion, the new system doesn't leave us in control of the game for the most part. It's more of a counter-attacking formation and not a nice, flowing offensive formation. With the old 4-3-3 , ---f-f-f-- --m-m-m-- -d-d--d-d- or ---f---f--- -----f----- --m-m-m-- -d-d--d-d-- we could pinch in the 3 mids or make the midfield wide by taking the central forward position down and make it temporarily a Mid. Atacking down the flanks is also effective because when we pinched in the midfield, there was room for the wing backs (namely chastain) to move into the attack. Because there are more people in the attack, there is usually a greater amount of success goalwise. But in April's 4-4-2 system, ---f-------- -------f---- -----m----- ---m--m--- -----m----- -d-d--d-d- the midfield, because it's so heavily focused in the center, gets awfully congested and the opponent's attack, as well as ours, is hindered greatly. And as a result, we usually suffer more because we like to attack. Most of our scoring chances are usually, as someone already posted, very predictable and quite boring at times when practically nothing is happening because the ball is perpetually trapped in the midfield. I think that if April really wants to use this system to shut down other teams with a five-woman midfield, she should use almost exclusively long ball or overload one flank by moving one of the "side-central" midfielders closer to the sideline and moving up a wingback when on the attack. This is the Brasilian men's attacking style; they use it perfectly. They usually ping the ball along the right side--from the defense to 3/4 of the way up--and then cut into the middle (but still keep an option on the wings). When they get to that point, they either split the defense with a cutting thru ball or serve it back to the wings where it will be served back into the box hoping for a chance on goal. THAT'S how we should play this system. But it all sounds perfect on paper..
Perspective is Everything Here is another perspective on the game. http://waymoresports.thestar.com/NA...137871627&call_pagepath=Columnists/Columnists In this version the USA was not so dominant. In fact the USA was very lucky that a poor call resulted in a Canadian goal being called back. I hear another Canadian goal was also called back on an offside, but the call could have legitimately gone either way. Could have just as easily been a 3-1 loss to Canada. I guess a 1-1 tie on an 86'th minute goal was a good result for the USA under the circumstances.