Unless you are posting this at the 55 minute mark, I think that you might want to research "clinical defence of a one goal lead" versus "relentless assault. Canada defended well, and after the goal, and a couple of substitutions on the wings Costa Rica hardly tested us. And generally, to those making the "larceny" comments, Keepers are allowed to stop the ball. Gonzalez made a couple of fine save on the other end too. Parks blew a sitter, and Hirsch made a fine save on another. 1-1 might have been a slightly fairer result on the balance of play...but larceny? Puhleeeze.
Oh spare me.... I did my research, and the USA's defense of their one goal lead -vs- Mexico last Summer was how it should be done. Ditto Germany -vs- USA. Yesterday, Canada mounted no counter-attacks after bunkering-in to protect the lead. Costa Rica were constantly working the top of the box. For my money, a "clinical defence of a one goal lead" includes challenging balls within 35-yds and mounting counter-attacks that threaten to stretch a one-goal lead to two. Finally, without feeling the need to explain, I think I'll stick by my opinion regarding yesterday's "larceny."
Goddamnnit, we will not be considered a serious soccer nation until our defenders start handling the ball in the area when nursing one-goal leads. Gordon, what were you thinking? That's how the big boys do it! Obviously we're doing it all wrong, I mean after Hirschfeld robbed Parks a minute after we scored, we barely let them into our penalty area, nevermind allowing danger that necessitated us putting one over on the official. Seriously though, I didn't think we played an amazing game and obviously Costa Rica created more chances. But as we well know (and Canadians know better than most after the last World Cup qualifying campaign) you can create all the chances you want, if you can't finish them none of it matters. We did have a couple of nice counters. If McKenna could have laid off a pass it could have been three. He had a two-on-one with Stalteri and didn't get the ball across and then he didn't spring Bent later. We had the best of the first 30 minutes (two great chances and six corners), Costa Rica dominated the next 30 (a cross bar, two nice Hirschfeld saves, two good shots just off the post and the Parks miss) and then Costa Rica struggled to generate anything as dangerous as they had previously after the 60 minute mark. We didn't create much of anything either (cue the neutrals snoring), but we were winning and so I'm not complaining. cheers, hobbes
Not sure where in any of my many posts on this thread I've dogged Canada's team, or not taking them seriously. However, I have been called out as someone who apparently doesn't know anything about the game. Thus, I'm going to respond. Sure Hobbes, go ahead and nitpick the questionable hand-ball in USA-v-Mexico without addressing the other aspects in my post (counters, challenging outside the 18). Since that's the approach you took, I guess I can feel pretty safe that my thoughts on 'clinical defense' are pretty close. Regarding your summary of the game, I'll accept it as your view of what happened, without any associated name-calling...
I didn't mean to dog you Stan, I just thought it was funny that the two games you chose to point to as good defence while proctecting a one-goal lead were both games that had very strong/borderline obvious handball appeals by the teams you were pointing to as great defensive displays. So I took a sarcastic bent and ran with it. I never said you disrecpted our team and I didn't mean to imply it. It wasn't all directed at you, but the general tone of this thread. I never said you didn't know anything about the game and I don't entirely disagree with what you said. We're not a great defensive team, but I do think we tightened up well after the goal and after the subs. I do think that Costa Rica managed only one great scoring chance after our goal and that came a minute after we scored. We were much, much more fragile defensively before we scored than after. I addressed the counters (the two that should have been goals) and I said that Costa Rica rarely posessed the ball in our area after the goal. The few times they did get near the 18 - the shots were charged down IIRC. I'm almost tempted to re-watch the game and see if Costa Rica even got a shot on target in the last 30 minutes. Anyway, my apologies if you felt my attempt at humour was an attempt to discredit your soccer knowledge. We may not pride ourselves on our bunker, we do pride ourselves on having it be effective! cheers, hobbes
No, that certainly wasn't you... Sorry if I got a bit irratated about the handball stuff, but there was more to those games than those two (non) calls. Now that we're back on topic, I want to disagree with the last 30-minutes stuff. Yes, Costa Rica did not get a shot off after the "minute after we scored" chance. From what I remember, CR sent several enterprising balls into the area. Most of these were gobbled up by Hirschfeld, who had a great game. One in particular, a CR forward was ready to pounce, but Lars got there first. Furthermore, these were not long-crosses but short chips/passes into the box... I'll give-in on the point about the counters. I don't remember them, but you seem to know the details... I wish Canada good luck, but wonder why it seems they only get the results in Copa de Oro...
According to the Boston Globe on yesterday morning, about 7000 people were there to cheer Costa Rica. As someone already pointed out, they were mostly on the west side of the stadium(usually closed) and in the adjacent corners. They were loud as hell too. When Canada did something good, there was scattered, polite applause. The east side, behind the benches, is mostly season ticket holders, a lot of whom obviously decided they couldn't or didn't want to watch 3 games in 1 day. Me, I was feeling a twinge of regret as USA-ES got underway that that was it. No Canada doesn't play anything resembling the beautiful game, but they gave it their all, played smart and got just enough lucky breaks. I think one of the biggest might have been in Sampson's choice of tactics. There was something else in the Globe with a quote from him to the effect of 'if we have to play conservatively, we will'. Did he take Canada too seriously? Why on earth did he feel the need to sound that note of caution, when CR's typical approach gives so much more trouble to slow, conservative teams? It seemed to me that Costa Rica spent way too much time attacking down the middle and so put a lot less pressure on those defenders. Do they always go down the middle? Or were their outside guys not doing well? Costa Rica yesterday bore a scary resemblance to the USA in France. Too conservative and unable to take advantage of their strengths.
I was at the match, and personally I thought the match was rather exciting. I, along with 4 of my American friends (we and maybe only a few other Americans came for the first match) and about the 15 Canadien supporters who showed up behind the Canadien goal in the second half, were cheering the whole second half as Canada was being bombarded with shots and the pressure continued to mount once Costa Rica realized that time was running out on them down 1-0. About 90% of the stadium was filled with Ticos fans, some El Salvadorians and just the few American and Canadien fans behind the one goal. The US-El Salvador match was even more exciting as there were more people there (seemed like so many El Salvadorians, there were so many of their flags) and the game was even more exciting.
I didn't mean to insult you son, but you've obviously taken it that way, so I apologise. I do disagree entirely with your "relentless assault" and "larceny" observations. A relentless assault, in my books, entails scoring opportunites, none of which were forthcoming for the Tico's after the Canadian goal. There were also counter attacks, that you seem to have forgotten, including one where, had Mckenna a little more speed and a marginally better first touch, goal number 2 was a very real possibility. Carlo Corazzin, who came on late also put two very nice forward balls that, while coming to naught, had the C/R backline scrambling to regain their form. Generally, the game was fairly even, although the Tico's did have a good 15 minute spell to end the first and a great 10 minute spell to start the second. Other than that, they were largely ineffective - something you noted for the first half at least. It is all well and fine to prefer a certain style of soccer. And the Costa Rican's were indeed technically more proficient than Canada although their offensive forays were generally unimaginative and easily countered by a second tier Canadian defence and midfield. Lots of ineffective possession is as useless as optimistic long balls. It might look prettier, but it is no more effective. Well, OK, it is more effective from a defensive stanpoint because the opposition can't score when you have the ball. Costa Rica had two good scoring chances in this game. They missed one and Lars made a great save on the other. The rest were eye candy. While one could point fingers at Parks and claim he blew several chances, the truth is that, by the time he got the ball in all but one case, there was not enough seperation between him and the keeper for him to do much but try to blast it through. This is particulalry true of the partial break on the right. I see several people getting excited about the chances Costa Rica had, but they really were not that great. He should have had the one he wiffed however. But if Costa Rica had gotten more than one or, maybe, two, I'd have a problem with our keeping. So quite frankly, a draw, or a one goal win by either team all would have been just results from the game. And after the goal, Costa Rica rarely came close. They couldn't get off good shots and they really had no options. So, in my mind, a clincal defence equates with keeping the opposition from getting close to the getting the equalizer and there was no relentless assault after 55 minutes. In any event, you feel that I know nothing of the game. Well, fair enough. Been watching it, and probably playing it, longer than you have been alive, likely. But it makes no matter to me. I do, for your sake, and enjoyment of the game, that you come to appreciate different styles of play and recognize the strengths on display. I too, prefer the possession style, and visually, find the Costa Rican Style - and that of the US - more appealing than the style we play all to often in Canada. But I am not so enamoured with it that I can't recognize when it is ineffective. Nor fail to observe when other style are effective in accomplishing their objectives - namely to win.
Canada deserved the 3 points. They scored more goals. They played within themselves and did what they had to do. Maybe it wasn't pretty, but it worked. That's all that really matters. It won't always work, especially against good teams. This Canadian side did look a damn sight better than the one who played the US in January.
Canada 1 - Costa Rica 0 Bad luck!! That was all... I know Costa Rica missed tons of opportunities to score.. And if you can't score you can't win!! But Costa Rica was the one who tried to play some good soccer... Canada had about 2 good chances to score but as someone said.. Goalies stop balls and that why they play for. Canada took advantage after a long ball where Marin couldnt cut-off and left Stalteri with the goal on his feet. I think It was a good game... not as bad as some pleople say. I believe Canana will beat Cuba and qualify 1st in the group. CR will do so with Cuba and will fight USA on quater Finals... interesting game uh? CR - USA. Peace, JC
YCJ Photos 7/12: Costa Rica vs Canada My shots are now up, Fred Kfoury's will be up later. http://www.ibiblio.org/footy/2003/0712_crc_can_ycj.php Enjoy!