Olympic Games: Canada vs Colombia -Wednesday, July 31th - 3pm Eastern / 12pm Pacific - Stade de Nice

[Unnamed Trialist]

1 hour ago, rkomar said:

I think we had stiffer competition in the group stage in Tokyo, so it's hard to say if we are playing better this time.  It's amazing how much better you look with more time on the ball.  If we end up going through Germany, USA and Spain/France to win the gold, then I'll concede that we are a better team this time.  We got through Brazil, USA and Sweden last time, which were no slouches.

I think there were little details, like that penalty on Sinclair they ref did not call vs. the States (was it?) in Tokyo. In previous years, maybe we would not have gotten the call or the VAR support. 

This year, we were not punished for our little "incident" by the refs in the France or Colombia game (I only saw the first half live, then had to work, though that yellow on Beckie late 1st half was ridiculous). The the reffing was actually quite good, considering I thought that FIFA might try to get us one way and then another way. 

Now the question will be if that happens in quarter finals or further. Women's reffing has improved a lot but can have its own set of irrational moments, maybe not more but different than with the men. 

[BearcatSA]

1 hour ago, rkomar said:

I think we had stiffer competition in the group stage in Tokyo, so it's hard to say if we are playing better this time.  It's amazing how much better you look with more time on the ball.  If we end up going through Germany, USA and Spain/France to win the gold, then I'll concede that we are a better team this time.  We got through Brazil, USA and Sweden last time, which were no slouches.

We played well defensively with strong goalkeeping in Tokyo.  When our defensive play wasn't up to snuff, we were freight-trained by the home side at the WWC.

[Unnamed Trialist]

I much prefer us being underdogs, in a FU mode, tough and mentality strong in the face of adversity, as we saw with the men in Copa and the women here, to the soft mentality many even here seem to want to embrace with the U-20s--oh the grass, the ref, that player, the timewasting, a litany of tear-jerkers. We had everything in our favour to beat Panama ffs and go to a World Cup, and if we didn't and they did, we were the dupes. 

I hope Marsch recommends overhauling the youth programmes so we can get our kids in line with the competitive toughness of the senior teams.

[Cheeta]

1 hour ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I much prefer us being underdogs, in a FU mode, tough and mentality strong in the face of adversity, as we saw with the men in Copa and the women here, to the soft mentality many even here seem to want to embrace with the U-20s--oh the grass, the ref, that player, the timewasting, a litany of tear-jerkers. We had everything in our favour to beat Panama ffs and go to a World Cup, and if we didn't and they did, we were the dupes. 

I hope Marsch recommends overhauling the youth programmes so we can get our kids in line with the competitive toughness of the senior teams.

Clap-clap-clap.

[jonovision]

1 hour ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I much prefer us being underdogs, in a FU mode, tough and mentality strong in the face of adversity, as we saw with the men in Copa and the women here, to the soft mentality many even here seem to want to embrace with the U-20s

I also prefer the Canada teams that win over the ones that lose!

[InglewoodJack]

Crazy, CANWXNT basically came out and said 

If we defend the gold, I think we basically win the Olympics.

[Unnamed Trialist]

5 hours ago, InglewoodJack said:

Crazy, CANWXNT basically came out and said 

If we defend the gold, I think we basically win the Olympics.

I am mostly concerned the intensity of the narrative will exhaust them out of the competition. Also because our rivals are warned. And maybe the reffing will change for the worse.

Now we've overcome the sanction on the field, the points part, lets just forget all that crap and play football. No need to do anything special or anything heroic, getting past the next match will be a great accomplishment. 

 

[Kent]

15 hours ago, El Diego said:

For me, definitely. They are playing noticeably better than they did in Tokyo. I don't think it's hyperbole to say that qualifying out of the group, with the -6 and all the craziness going around, is one of the greatest Canadian sports stories ever.

Maybe at this point it is, but if we lose to Germany it will drop way down the list.

For example, you don't hear about how great the 1981 Canada Cup hockey team was. The team was stacked (lead by Guy Lafleur, stars from the dynastic New York Islanders, and a young but already record breaking Wayne Gretzky), went through the round robin portion of the tournament undefeated (with a tie against Czechoslovakia) including a 9-0 win against Finland, and a 7-3 win against the Soviet Union. 32 goals in those first 5 games (compared to 21 and 20 for the next highest scoring teams) but after taking care of business in the semi final, they lost 8-1 against the Soviet Union in the final and you never hear the Canadian media bring up that tournament. It's all about the 1972 team, 1987, 2002, 2010 or other years they won it all.

[InglewoodJack]

6 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I am mostly concerned the intensity of the narrative will exhaust them out of the competition. Also because our rivals are warned. And maybe the reffing will change for the worse.

Now we've overcome the sanction on the field, the points part, lets just forget all that crap and play football. No need to do anything special or anything heroic, getting past the next match will be a great accomplishment. 

 

I think it’s actually the opposite- this is a team mired in scandal without a head coach and without two assistants- the only way to make a run of it is through sheer willpower and motivation. 
 

I also think we’re playing with house money now- no one will fault the team if we lose next game and make an early exit; we’ve already exceeded expectations and beat the FIFA sanctions. That takes some of the edge off of everything. 

[jonovision]

We don't talk about this much on the women's side, but what has this tournament done for our FIFA ranking? 3 wins, including against the #2 ranked team. I have to think even if we lose to Germany we make gains overall.

[TGAA_Star]

Girls endured and they overcame and now that they are in the next round against Germany 🇩🇪 I can't wait

[dyslexic nam]

9 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I am mostly concerned the intensity of the narrative will exhaust them out of the competition. Also because our rivals are warned. And maybe the reffing will change for the worse.

Now we've overcome the sanction on the field, the points part, lets just forget all that crap and play football. No need to do anything special or anything heroic, getting past the next match will be a great accomplishment. 

 

I share some concern about depleting the passion tank before the end of the tournament, but I am also skeptical about trying to clearly change the ethos that got them to where they are at.  That seems a bit too much like teams that get a lead and then radically alter their tactics.  Far too many times I have seen teams crumble when all they had to do was keep playing the style that got them there in the first place.  

Between the two options (keep running on adrenaline and bile vs trying to transition back to a calmer and more measured approach) I think I lean towards the former.  Reinforce the mentality that this is still an us against the world, get the team riled up before each game, and see if we can power through to the finish line.   

[jonovision]

9 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

Reinforce the mentality that this is still an us against the world, get the team riled up before each game, and see if we can power through to the finish line.   

And, if necessary, it is only a subtle shift from that mentality to the "nobody believes in us" underdog mentality, which will also be true: they will be major underdogs in every possible remaining match barring some big upsets. 

[Kent]

1 hour ago, jonovision said:

We don't talk about this much on the women's side, but what has this tournament done for our FIFA ranking? 3 wins, including against the #2 ranked team. I have to think even if we lose to Germany we make gains overall.

I have never actually looked into the women's ranking procedure until just now after reading your comment. If I am not mistaken, we started the tournament with 1951 points, and now we should be at around 1983 points. The women's ranking formula is actually quite different from the men's in a few ways. One of the difference is that for the men they don't lose points if they lose a knockout round game. I don't see any mention of that for the women's formula (I'm just going off of Wikipedia). So if we lose to Germany (say 1-0, because score matters as well in the women's rankings) I think we will actually fall down to about 1965 points.

Note that I didn't calculate new ranking points for any of our opponents, I just went with their pre-tournament ranking points.

I hope this is correct. I made a few mistakes along the way. Had to redo my calculations a few times.

[BearcatSA]

Keep the "us vs the world, no respect" angle, by all means, but play a smart tactical match that makes us a hard team to beat.  That's how we won three years ago  and that's how we'll continue to win going forward.  

[jonovision]

What should we expect from Germany? Both of their wins were by two goals, but they got waxed by USA.

[BearcatSA]

2 hours ago, jonovision said:

What should we expect from Germany? Both of their wins were by two goals, but they got waxed by USA.

I am watching the US-GER match right now

The Americans capitalized on their chances, the Germans didn't.  The first two US goals came from weak defending, especially the second, and the third from an awkward deflection.  Nahler had to make some crucial saves, notably from Horan's bad giveaway in the third minute.  That could have changed the whole match dynamic right there.

The US under Hays still looks like a track team in soccer boots but I like Girma in the back.  Though they have a clear pattern of build up play and have some counter attack savvy, Hrubesch's side seems to lack quality in key moments and I am not sure how healthy Alèxandra Popp is, so they might not be able ride the  "Hop on Popp" train.  They are aggressive and strong in challenges, so I can't see someone like Grosso starting in this one.  One of Quinn or Awuju needs to be in the midfield.

The final goal came at the end off the counter.  Based on what I have seen, the scoreline didn't reflect the play.  The Germans wlll be a challenge but if we play to our strengths, good things will happen.

 

 

Edited August 1 by BearcatSA

[Allez les Rouges]

9 hours ago, Kent said:

I have never actually looked into the women's ranking procedure until just now after reading your comment. If I am not mistaken, we started the tournament with 1951 points, and now we should be at around 1983 points. The women's ranking formula is actually quite different from the men's in a few ways. One of the difference is that for the men they don't lose points if they lose a knockout round game. I don't see any mention of that for the women's formula (I'm just going off of Wikipedia). So if we lose to Germany (say 1-0, because score matters as well in the women's rankings) I think we will actually fall down to about 1965 points.

Note that I didn't calculate new ranking points for any of our opponents, I just went with their pre-tournament ranking points.

I hope this is correct. I made a few mistakes along the way. Had to redo my calculations a few times.

Yup, I get a gain of 30-35 points as well, almost all from the win against France.

Japan should have a marginal gain, so Canada may have edged just past them into 7th.

The US has probably vaulted into 2nd spot. England likely stays 3rd, while France and Germany are roughly tied in 4th/5th.

Beating Germany should push Canada past Germany and Sweden - and also France if it fails to beat Brazil. So Canada could be as high as 4th after the next game, which would match its best ranking ever. If Japan gets the same result vs USA as Canada does vs Germany, Japan and Canada would be roughly tied (since USA is now higher ranked than Germany).

All this is ignoring the effect of pre-tournament friendlies, so actual results may vary.

Yes, women appear to lose points if they lose in a knockout game - there was an uproar in Australia when they dropped from 10th to 11th after finishing 4th (losing both a semi-final and the 3rd-place game) at the World Cup. (Given Australia's performance at the Olympics, you have to say the ranking's logic is reasonable.) Another difference between the men's and women's rankings is that shootouts don't seem to count at all for women.

[Kent]

An interesting thing I learned was that for the women it is possible to lose ranking points despite winning the game. For example, if Canada were to play, let's say Bahamas, they would be expected to beat them by a bunch. If Canada only won by a single goal, they would almost certainly lose points. I actually ran into this with the win against Colombia the first time I ran the numbers, when I had the wrong ranking points for the teams. I got the points from a site that has a tool for calculating the men's ranking points. Turns out not only does that site not have a tool for women's soccer, they also have (wildly?) out of date rankings for the women.

[Allez les Rouges]

1 hour ago, Kent said:

An interesting thing I learned was that for the women it is possible to lose ranking points despite winning the game. For example, if Canada were to play, let's say Bahamas, they would be expected to beat them by a bunch. If Canada only won by a single goal, they would almost certainly lose points. I actually ran into this with the win against Colombia the first time I ran the numbers, when I had the wrong ranking points for the teams. I got the points from a site that has a tool for calculating the men's ranking points. Turns out not only does that site not have a tool for women's soccer, they also have (wildly?) out of date rankings for the women.

In fact, it looks like Germany and US lost ranking points vs Zambia despite winning 4-1 and 3-0 respectively.

[Unnamed Trialist]

Regarding ranking points: we fell out of the top pot for the WWC in Australia because we mismanaged a couple friendlies just before the cut-off date. I only knew this because Spain's few friendly wins before the cut-off vaulted them into a seed and enabled the WC win. 

Another CSA flop, incapable of focusing on basic competitive details. We've seen this with the men for decades. 

Once you are top 8, it matters less, and of course being almost sure to qualify for most major events on the women's side, it matters less. Except key moments: last chance we had to make a difference when it made a difference, we blew it.

[Allez les Rouges]

4 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Regarding ranking points: we fell out of the top pot for the WWC in Australia because we mismanaged a couple friendlies just before the cut-off date. I only knew this because Spain's few friendly wins before the cut-off vaulted them into a seed and enabled the WC win. 

Another CSA flop, incapable of focusing on basic competitive details. We've seen this with the men for decades. 

Once you are top 8, it matters less, and of course being almost sure to qualify for most major events on the women's side, it matters less. Except key moments: last chance we had to make a difference when it made a difference, we blew it.

Good point. Though you really need to be 7th unless the host is in the Top 8, which is not currently the case for the next WC.

Last time, Canada was 7th, but there were 2 hosts. The draw worked out anyway as Canada ended up in the same group as a host rather than a genuine Pot 1 team, but it was dumb to rely on luck.

[jonovision]

 

Just as a point of comparison, the equivalent number for Canada's peak at Copa (the Argentina match) was 6.9 million.

Tomorrow should be a bigger number, given it's the weekend.

[Unnamed Trialist]

7 hours ago, Allez les Rouges said:

Good point. Though you really need to be 7th unless the host is in the Top 8, which is not currently the case for the next WC.

Last time, Canada was 7th, but there were 2 hosts. The draw worked out anyway as Canada ended up in the same group as a host rather than a genuine Pot 1 team, but it was dumb to rely on luck.

Actually I think it was something like that, with the host a top seed. I can't find the exact reference.

Mind you, I don't think our group was hard enough to not be able to get out of it.

[red card]

4 hours ago, jonovision said:

 

Just as a point of comparison, the equivalent number for Canada's peak at Copa (the Argentina match) was 6.9 million.

Tomorrow should be a bigger number, given it's the weekend.

6.9m was the total reach for the second Argentina match. Peak wasn't disclosed. 

In past Olympics and also with last week's Opening Ceremony, CBC has tended to cherry pick what viewership number it releases. So, again, CBC didn't define whether 4.6m refers to average (industry standard), peak or reach. But wording implies reach.