Tokyo Olympics SF: USWNT vs Canada, August 2, pre/pbp/post

Most the "woke" narrative is pretty silly. I do think that Jaelene Daniels would have helped the team, and while I don't agree with her politics, I don't think it was fair for her to be excluded.

 

Where is the thumbs-down button?

 

Always time for self reflection as a player or coach. Now is a good time for this team and the USSF.

 

Sweden’s the only none English speaking country as well as only Euro to make it into the semis.
Noticing too, GB’s failure to make it into the semi’s even though it’s WSL league was suppose to set the standard for the rest of the world with it’s star power players & higher wages.

So what you think happened? Just temp setback?

btw….both Canada & Sweden want the game moved from its original time slot due to the impending heat wave. If they can’t, who will benefit most from playing in 100 degree weather?

 

Apparently the temp and humidity “feels like 47 degrees”, which any American would find quite pleasant. The trick must be to switch to Fahrenheit for the duration of the game.

 

47 degrees(farenheit) would be quite cold for Americans living in the south. If you mean't 47 segrees celsius, that would equal 116 farenheit(which could be be posbile if you add humidity)
temperature predicted for tomorow = 97 degrees around noon(36.111 celcius)
tokyo weather - Google Search

Canada might have an advantage since several of theirs previously played for southern colleges

 

Yea, I was attempting some humour

 

My God, you're a child.

Andy brought the goods and you're annoyed because it doesn't agree 100% with your narrow-but-unverifiable explanation. Amazing.

Even more amazing is that you probably ACTUALLY agree with at least 70% if not more of what Andy has said (unless I'm wrong and you really do think that it's only about culture-war politics, as opposed to the organizational kind).

 

umm.

Ok, so I admit it. I didn't watch the US - Canada game till last night.

I'm surprised the narrative was how bad we played, when in reality Canada was pretty awful. Canada didn't posses the ball in their half for the first 20 minutes of the second half. lol.

And to think they won GOLD. lolz.

 

defence wins .

they had the best defence in the tournament.

 

No, I don't think they had the best defense of the tournament.

They allowed more shots, shots on goal, corner kicks than almost all quarterfinalist teams.

GB, Sweden, Brazil defense allowed less goals in group stage.

Canada advanced with a plus 1 in goal differential, one of the worst (other than Japan).

They got the best calls though.

 

Bitterness is fun!

 

Honesty.
Brazil, GB, US and Sweden all out played Canada.
Let's call a spade a spade.
(I don't think the US should have or deserved the gold either)

 

There is nothing wrong about "allowing" shots or even shots on goal. If the shots are mostly predictable then the GK will have little trouble with the saves and even great shots will be to a predictable area so the GK is more likely to make the save. The problem with allowing so many shots is that it is quite tiring to defend but, if done as Canada has done, trying to break well designed defenses can be almost as tiring.

Canada out played and out coached every team they faced and their GK was very good. That is a formula that wins more tournaments than trying to outscore the opposition.

It seemed to me that Canada had a very good plan about how they were going to play in this tournament and, even more important, they executed their plan about as well as I have ever seen for a short tournament.

The other piece is conditioning. Canada was, for the most part, still able to run even after playing several tight matches and even going 120 mins three times I think. Even Sinclair was running hard, but obviously tired, when she was subbed in the overtime.

In other words Canada won solidly but just not by big margins by having the best plan and having every single player (and the married ones too) by into the plan and being able to run for long matches.

Canada won the gold and Canada's coach should get a solid and long and well compensated extension to her contract.

In a tournament teams need a good plan and the willingness to play exactly how planed and a coach that makes good subs when needed.

Just to use one other team as contrast: USA's coach kept changing plans and kept changing personnel and nearly never made the play better. Then there is the team itself. Only a very few looked to be in top condition (Megan was the surprise here she was working and running for the entire time she played.) and they got their heads down early and often when things went bad.

Canada played to win the tournament without any desire to look "pretty" for the sake of future endorsements.

It will be a long time before Canada will be part of a match that is said to be one of the "best matches ever" but they are now clearly good enough to win ugly other tournaments in the future.

I also do not believe that any team truly out played Canada. Canada did what they planed and forced the other teams to fail at what they wished to do. To me playing the style you choose and winning the match (or advancing on kicks from the mark) means that you were better on that day and outplayed whoever you played.

 

While we are easy to castigate Vlakto for his handling of the US team, how about some praise for the Canadian coach. Brilliant job knowing she would not be able to play any of these teams straight up with the personnel she had, so she decided that to give them any kind of chance she focused on defense, in hopes it might at least get her to the medal round. Job well done on winning the gold!

 

First off, learn the difference between less and fewer, unless you are arguing that goals in group stage account for less. ( I do) Brasil had #15 China Pr and #104 Zambia in their group.
Britain lost in the quarterfinals by giving up an abominable 4 goals to Australia. Even a hat trick by White wasn’t enough to make up for their bad defence. They hardly seem like the team you should trot out as playing better defence. Sounds unconvincing.

Allowing shots means nothing if they are from distance and hurried. Sweden only managed to put four on frame. Two were rollers.

in the KO rounds they gave up the one goal to Sweden, and it was the strength of the back line that sent Sweden’s scorers to the bench in exahaustion before PK’s. Those other teams were in different groups. Turns out Canada’s PK defence was marginally better than Sweden’s. They have only themselves to blame.

Sweden gave up 5 goals in group for third in group and scored 2 and gave up 3 in the KO rounds last time. That surely is the worst performance for a finalist ever, if you insist on looking for one.

Canada held teams ranked above them, including the #1, to 1 goal total in the KO rounds, shutting out Brasil (your example of better defence) and the USWNT.


third, the foul in the box by Sweden was a bad, cheap foul that deserved a card as well as a PK. It was all player and the only surprise was that the ref didn’t get it. Of course, it was a EURO ref.
Sweden should also have gotten two yellow cards for targeting Labbé. Replay of the second one clearly shows the Swede running at her from behind.

Thank goodness for the VAR referee Bibiana Steinhouse, a legend refereeing on the pitch who knows more what a foul is than you.

 

Canada is VAR. haha

 

Outplaying without outscoring is useless.

Mexico's men know this intensely. So does any team with 60+% possession that gets undone by a counterattack or two.

Thank God that football isn't JUST a matter of who "played better".

 

To me it was clear why it was missed by the on field ref. From behind and on first viewing it looked like the Swedish player got the ball and sent it toward the sideline, that is what I saw when it happened. In reality that is not what happened but the position that the call was made from it looked that way.

This is the exact kind of missed call in the box that VAR was and is intended to catch. Good job VAR.

And I will say again: Everybody that Canada played was out coached and/or had players that did not play exactly the way they were told. That is Canada won every coaching dual they faced.