Canada v. Germany [R]

Discussion in 'Women's International' started by nsa, Sep 20, 2003.

  1. nsa

    nsa Member+

    New England Revolution
    United States
    Feb 22, 1999
    Notboston, MA
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  2. sregis

    sregis Member

    Nov 5, 1999
    Hoboken, USA
    strong match by germany! left canada in a shambles in the 2nd half. looked to me like a strong women's nat. team v. a u.s. b or c team. germ. could be the most complete squad in the tourney.
  3. Labdarugo

    Labdarugo Member

    Dec 3, 2000
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Wow. I guess moving Ch Hooper to defence didn't make too much difference. What was the rationale for that move anyway?
  4. FearM9

    FearM9 New Member

    Jul 14, 2000
    On my bike
    Someone correct me if I'm wrong...but I swear I thought I read somewhere that Hooper was moved back there cuz of an injury to one of their defenders.

    Or am I totally wrong on that?

  5. DennisM

    DennisM Member

    Dec 10, 2000
    Nya Sverige
    Boyd and Chapman are injured. Boyd was called up by Candace wasn't. You have to beat Germany on the ground. They head too well. They are too powerful and strong in the air. Canada just couldn't get much going on the offense. Great goal by Sinclair. Unfortunate handball by Hooper. Save excellent saves by LeBlanc. Germany is a superior side.
  6. fidlerre

    fidlerre Moderator
    Staff Member

    Oct 10, 2000
    Central Ohio
    well said. canada started the match with balls on the ground and seemed to be doing well...then they scored their goal and it all changed, they started booting long balls in the air and you are not going to beat germany at that game, mens or womens. it just fell apart in the second half...but this team is fairly young and will be a good side, they should easily beat argentina and the japan match will be the deciding factor as to who moves on.
  7. DennisM

    DennisM Member

    Dec 10, 2000
    Nya Sverige
    Well, that's it. Canada had too many young players. Wiegmann still showed why is a force to be reckoned with. And of course, Meinert. Still the best playmaker in the world? I would say so.
  8. toepunt

    toepunt Member

    Aug 24, 2003
    North America
    Did we get outplayed or what? The sub of Wilkinson for Land added nothing and it took away some. LeBlanc lost all her confidence after the penalty kick. Could have been worst. Germany showed experience, passing accuracy, fitness and form in the field. The scarce minutes where we played our game was simply because Germany let us. Game against Japan will be crucial.
  9. voros

    voros Member

    Jun 7, 2002
    Parts Unknown
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I watched and I concur with the selection of Meinert. Canada had no answers for her skills. Prinz missed several sitters or else this could have been even worse.

    Germany was VERY shaky on set pieces but was otherwise the superior side throughout, even when it was down 1-0.
  10. cachundo

    cachundo Marketa Davidova. Unicorn. World Champion

    Feb 8, 2002
    Genesis 16:12...He shall be a wild ass among men
    Manchester United FC
    Is that Wilkinson the one who plays for Tennessee? If so, CAN are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Saw her play against Stanford & Satan Clara last year & I wasn't impressed. If one can't match up well against a Stanford, how much more against seasoned WC sides?

    It's a shame Chapman's injured. In terms of technical skills, I think she's way better than Sinclair. Sinclair gets the press because she can score. Other than scoring off a free header, I thought Sinclair was lazy the rest of the game.

    About the game, GER's tactical superiority eventually wore down the feisty Canadians. Movement on & off the ball were very good. To a player, GER can move the ball up. Can't say the same thing about CAN.

    CAN also let one too many balls drop into their own PA. The Germans made them pay dearly for that.
  11. LomaB8

    LomaB8 New Member

    Jun 3, 2001
    Thought it wasn't too bad. Germany could have been up by more but Canada could have had atleast 2 more. Sinclair couldn't get to Kiss' (?) free kick and missed the net after outrunning the defense...

    Canada had a hard time with Germany's physicality. (Is that a word?) MAtheson disappeared largely because of this. She was muscled off the ball more than a few times and she pretty much had no chance with the ball in the air.

    Hooper's hand ball didn't initally look intentional, but from another camera angle it did look suspicious....

    Hooper plays well in the back line. I like Dennis, but she's slow, consistently being beat by Gottschlich (sp?)

    The midfield was lost, someone in the mid-field wasn't marking and that resulted in that second quick German goal.

    I agree I was mystified as to why Lang came off and not say Matheson. I like her but she was being manhandled in the midfield.......

    When will the refs ever get the obstruction call correct in the women's game?
    Nonen needed to be called for it in the first half and a German defender in the second.......
  12. olafgb

    olafgb New Member

    Jun 6, 2001
    I think Germany started extremely nervous. I've seldom seen them with such an extreme number of turnovers as in the starting thirty minutes. The defence was very confuse and not a lot worked in the offence. However, the midfield got that under control at some point and from then on Germany was superior for the rest of the game. Alone Prinz missed three 100%ers (and scored with the worst chance she had...).

    Canada's playing style was too simple IMO. That was almost a copy of the old British kick & rush, which is very predictable and doesn't endanger a good defence very often.

    As LomaB8 said, the hand ball seemed unintentional on the first sight and from several perspectives, but they had one replay where it looked like she was lifting the ball intentionally.

    On the German side I wondered why Garefrekes - who is in an outstanding shape - didn't start, but Gottschlich came in, scored (as well as Garefrekes later on), so the Coach was proven right with her decision.
  13. FanOfFutbol

    FanOfFutbol Member+

    The Mickey Mouse Club or The breakfast Club
    May 4, 2002
    Nat'l Team:
    Hooper was OK int defense but no better than OK. Taking one of the best forwards in the world and movinr her to defense was a STUPID move.

    It was a good idea to try her out in defense in a friendly or two since that might be needed late in a game WHEN CANDA HAS A LEAD but playing a WWC match without her up front is saying that Canada has no real intrese in winning.

    It was a worse idea than it would be for the US to move Mia to defense.

    For the first time since I have followed him I belive that Canada's coach failed to put the best lineup on the field.

    Canada still has a chance to come out of the group BUT they will not win even one game with Hooper playing defense.

    There is no one, but Hooper, on the Canada team that can break a good defemse on her own. As good as the other forwards are they are not the direct players Hooper is.

    Coaches rarely do somethiong to win games BUT, as in this case, they can do things to loose them.
  14. Mel10

    Mel10 New Member

    Apr 24, 2001
    in your underpants
    I was blown away with Germany's one touch passing.

    They were just too quick for us, pure and simple.

    Hopefully the players can shake it off ... I have every faith that they can. Besides, I still think Germany is a team we could have, and can beat.
  15. toepunt

    toepunt Member

    Aug 24, 2003
    North America
    How very true !!
    There were a few occasions where Hooper drifted up front and you could see right away how she dominated the situation.
  16. toepunt

    toepunt Member

    Aug 24, 2003
    North America
    That's the one!
  17. voros

    voros Member

    Jun 7, 2002
    Parts Unknown
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Welcome to North American football Olaf! :)

    It's a problem for both Canada and the USA at all levels, Men & Women's, with the lone exception of the USA senior men's side and then only when they have their very best players on the field. Even the USA Women struggle with this from time to time, but defend so well and are so much more athletic that they can get enough players forward to make the tactic dangerous anyway.

    It's the central problem of the further development of the sport in the United States and Canada for both genders: teaching our players the ability to play a possession oriented, quick short passing attack from an early age, and keeping the ball out of the air when the situation doesn't favor such a tactic.
  18. NYC ugly

    NYC ugly Member

    Aug 7, 2000
    Very near my computer
    Canada's best attacking option that was working was Lang's attacks on the right flank. When she came out, Canada's attack went nowhere. Forget their defensive problems, Canada's midfield just didn't show up. I actually picked them to WIN it all, this game made that prediction extremely silly,they looked lost and panicked.
  19. GopherBob

    GopherBob Member

    Jun 6, 2003
    There's a long way to go.

    I think a lot of people fail to realize that this is an extremely young Canadian side. They went up against one of the most experienced and best teams in the world. Their style of play failed them and they didn't make proper adjustments.

    Pick up, move on, and worry about Japan and Argentina. Win those two, and they're still sitting pretty.
  20. olafgb

    olafgb New Member

    Jun 6, 2001
    kicker ratings (scale 1-6 with 1 being best):

    Rottenberg 2.5 – Stegemann 2.5, Hingst 2.5, Minnert 3.5, Bresonik 4 – Meinert 1.5, Jones 3.5, Lingor 3.5, Gottschlich 2.5 – Wiegmann 3 – Prinz 2.5

    Leblanc 3 – Nonen 3.5, Hooper 4, Timko 4.5, Dennis 4 – Neil 4.5, Kiss 3.5, Matheson 4, Lang 4.5 (Wilkinson 4.5) – Latham 5, Sinclair 3
  21. AntiU

    AntiU New Member

    Sep 22, 2003
    Where was the talent?

    I'd like to know what happened to the veterans... the ones that played the last world cup... you know... older that 18 year-olds?

    Granted GER is the power-house at this years WWC and the favorites, but still... we looked like a club team that got together for the first time after our goal!?

    OK... so I'm probably gonna piss off a few people here but... here goes.

    Hooper is so over-rated in my opinion (don't confuse over-rated with sucks or shouldn't be there... I never said that!). Therefore just her presence will get on the opposites' team nerves - as we saw a few times she was able to sneak up... but if you don't feed her the ball to her feet, she ain't gonna go get it! She is very demanding when she's in front and will give hard time once she has the ball up there and in the box. Which we seemed to be lacking. So... what was she doin' back there. Didn't they have time to find a "better" replacement in the back? Someone who had more experience!?

    Those poor girls in the middle in midfield where having a hard time there too weren't they. Kiss... the only reason she made that team was because she has a accurate shot for free kicks and such, other than that... she's too short to win those balls in the middle. Instead of Hooper taking those left corner, let Kiss take 'em and bring Hooper up front for a header. Who cares if they curve out a bit, at least you'll have an added horse in Hooper in front to try and get that one in. Kiss is too short to do anything in that box on corners.

    Anywho... I got my flame suit on. Fire away at will ;)

    I still think they can go through with GER (unless JPN upset GER)... they've shown in prep matches that they can score and kick a$$. Let's just hope they'll rebound from that game and kick ARG's butt! :D

    Go Canada!


    Why didn't Isabelle Morneau play?
  22. Mel10

    Mel10 New Member

    Apr 24, 2001
    in your underpants
    If the girls think the same way I do ... I'm expecting a romp VS ARG.

  23. Bob Abouy

    Bob Abouy New Member

    Jul 29, 2003
    Game vs. Germany

    I was at the game in Columbus. Some Quick Thoughts

    1. Kara Lang is a very very good player. Having said that she strugled after the 15 minute mark. In short she ran out of gas. I'm thinking that she was nervous and will do better in the next game. Remember, this was the most important game that she has ever played in. You are only human if you tighten up.

    2. Hooper's move to defense was a good move. She is a goal scorer but the fact is she is also one of the best defenders on the team. Does anybody think that the coach was not aware that putting her in the back line would hurt their offensive chances? Of course he was. The fact is she was there for one reason. Stop Prinze. And she did just that. The moment she went up to the frontline it becam a carnival in the back. I have to say that if she would have stayed in the back Canada would have lost anyway. The game was lost in the midfield. Germany's midfield was able to find the forwards way to easily. Something was bound to happen and when Hooper went out of the back line I could here the carnival music begining. It was a good move by the coach to put her in the back but things didn't work out. It happens. Don't burn the guys house down just yet.

    Finally, Canada has made huuuuuge advances with the team in the last few years. The fact remaines though that they need to be fireing on all pistons to hange with the Germany's and USA's of the world. I was at the game in Columbus when they beat the US. It was no fluke. They made the US play badly by being ON in that game. They are a much better team than in the past they need all of there players to be playing very well to do well. They cannot afford to have 1 or 2 players play sub par games, which is what I believed happened the other night. Actually more peopl ethan that struggled but you all get my point. I am through with my rambleing . Keep the faith my northern friends. Good things can still happen. Go canada
  24. gousa9

    gousa9 New Member

    Aug 28, 1999
    Re: Where was the talent?

    i wished i had a bat phone to find that out.

    as i mentioned in the canadian thread in the int'l forum, coach is saying that izzy "hasn't played in over a year" to her reason of not gettng much time. so how will she get back to her norm when she's not playing at all.

    ugh. izzy's a natural left back ... she has proven her skill and experience through the years, and i do hope she gets a shot to prove her worth.

  25. Bob Abouy

    Bob Abouy New Member

    Jul 29, 2003
    Re: Where was the talent?


Share This Page