Fri 25 Jul, 2008
|
|
|
|
Canada: Game Report 3 - Canada vs Australia  x8
 |
| Field Hockey Canada logo |
June 20, 2005
Field Hockey Canada
> Page Views 2003
National Team Women
Game 3: Saturday, June 18, 2005 CANADA 0 - AUSTRALIA 1
(halftime: 0-0)
’39 1-0 Aus, Angie Skirving, pc
Canada rebounded tonight with an excellent effort against Australia. Canada’s game was characterized by long balls, good use of field width and great runs including an early breakaway for Canada.
Australia picked up the tempo in the second half but Canada managed to keep pace. The game’s only goal came off a penalty corner opportunity when sniper Angie Skirving batted in a rebounded ball after goalkeeper Sarah Forbes made the initial save off a direct hit. Canada had a number of shots on goal in the game but they were not awarded a single penalty corner through 70 minutes. Time ran out for the Canadians to tie it up and they will now look to the final game to pick up a win.
Carolyn Fitzgerald earned her first international cap for Canada.
Starting for Canada: Sarah Forbes (GK), Megan Anderson, Andy Rushton, Deb Cuthbert, Lauren MacLean, Kelly Rezansoff, Lesley Magnus, Kim Buker, Tiffany Michaluk, Clare Linton, Katie Rushton
Substitutions: Stephanie Hume, Robin Leslie-Spencer, Emily Rix, Carolyn Fitzgerald, Amanda Stone
Did not play: Erin Fraser, Ali Johnstone, Stephanie Quinn
Game 4: Sunday June 19, 2005 CANADA 0 - AUSTRALIA 6
(halftime: 0 - 3)
’5 1-0 Aus, Suzie Faulkner, pc
’19 2-0 Aus, Suzie Faulkner, pc
’33 3-0 Aus, Susannah Harris, fg
’37 4-0 Aus, Emily Halliday, pc
’66 5-0 Aus, Suzie Faulkner, pc
’69 6-0 Aus, Fiona Johnson, fg
Although Canada showed patches of quality play, they had difficulty maintaining intensity over the 70 minutes against this highly ranked opponent. Australia had ten penalty corner opportunities during the game and Canada showed strong defense allowing only two goals. There were limited offensive entries into the Australian circle with Canada only getting one penalty corner chance during the game.
Important for Canada, all seven newly capped players got invaluable experience with another international cap under their belts. Goalkeeper Amanda Stone played the entire game.
Starting for Canada: Amanda Stone (GK), Megan Anderson, Andy Rushton, Lauren MacLean, Kelly Rezansoff, Lesley Magnus, Kim Buker, Tiffany Michaluk, Clare Linton, Katie Rushton, Stephanie Hume
Substitutions: Stephanie Quinn, Robin Leslie-Spencer, Emily Rix, Carolyn Fitzgerald, Sarah Forbes
Did not play: Erin Fraser, Ali Johnstone, Deb Cuthbert
Your opinion counts.
Rate this article or enter your comments below.
|
Opinions expressed here do not represent the official views of PlanetFieldHockey.com or its staff. Comments will be removed if they are considered offensive or of a personal nature.
Comments on this article
|
Onlooker
06-21-2005 10:28 am
|
Report this post
|
Match reports
Maybe it's time to can the P.R. and get someone to do some real, objective reporting on games involving Canada. What's this about "not being being awarded a single penalty corner" (Game 3)? PCs are not dolled out -- they are earned. How can Canada be showing strong defense, as reported in match 4, and concede 6 goals? Am I missing something here? One thing is for sure: Canada just played four games on home turf against an Australian squad of mixed talent and failed to score a goal. It would be gratifying to get a realistic assessment as to their prospects but I'm not holding my breath -- just expecting more gushy prose about the importance of first caps and how Canada rebounded with excellent (though fruitless) efforts. The problem with this kind of P.R. isn't just that it conceals problems, it diverts attention from dealing with them, whatever they may be.
|
|
Reporter
06-21-2005 11:06 am
|
Report this post
|
re: Onlooker
Think about what you've written... this is an FHC person writing the reports. Of course they are not going to write, "wow, Canada sure got thumped today." EVERY sporting group puts out its own reports of the games - and they are focused on their own team and how they do. If you want a "bias free" report then you need a reporter out there covering the game. That is out of FHC's control.
But understand what you are reading. Go to Hockey Australia's web-site and read their reports. Go to the USFHA web-site and read their reports. For that matter go read the reports the Vancouver Canucks have about their games. Those are just as soft as these (as they shoudl be).
|
|
Onlooker
06-22-2005 10:55 am
|
Report this post
|
re: Reporter
I have thought well about what I have written, or I should not have written it. There is quite a difference between putting a positive spin on things and glossing things over. The next time the Vancouver Canucks concede six goals in a game and are congratulated in print for showing strong defense, please post the details here and I shall make a sizeable donation to the charity of your choice. I do not expect an FHC person to criticize the team, coach or any individual player in print, but it might be useful to know where the weaknesses, failures or breakdowns are occurring in general terms, or even why the other team is so much stronger. That means reflecting on the flow of the game and not just picking up on isolated incidents. However, it has to be admitted that it would take a rare degree of insight for which FHC unfortunately is not renowned.
|
|
interested
06-23-2005 2:01 am
|
Report this post
|
Onlooker
Your comments are quite interesting. Your views on what should be written however are not. Your comments on wanting to where the weaknesses, failures or breakdowns are occurring is NOT NEVER, EVER done in the newspaper. A good coach knows this. They can compliment the opposition point out their strengths and maybe the reasons why they were stronger! Your views are what are done behing closed doors. That is called coaching!
|
|
Onlooker
06-23-2005 11:33 am
|
Report this post
|
interested
What you have written has some validity during the course of a tournament. I accept that it is not advisable to provide intelligence to other teams. What I am suggesting, however, is that people reading reports of games deserve a more realistic assessment of what is going on than is the case now. What we are getting is not even P.R., which is the art of telling part of the truth as if it were the whole truth. What we are getting is distortion to the point of fabrication. Is the term "strong defense" in a writeup about a team that has conceded six unanswered goals justifiable or an insult to the intelligence? You decide. Another gem from the Game 3 report is, "Time ran out for the Canadians to tie it up." That may well be, but it also ran out for the Aussies to score more goals, unless we are to believe they were well and truly on the ropes. If you care to stop and think about it, you may realize that this kind of coverage risks holding Canada up to universal ridicule. Instead, is it too much to ask why Australia was so dominant? Are they much fitter? Are their stick-handling skills that much better? Do they string passes together better? Do they vary their game more? Do they play a more intelligent game? Do they have any set plays that really seem to pay off? Are there specific lessons Canada can learn from this series? These are all topics that can be addressed in a match report without risk of giving away all our precious strategic plans.
|
|
Hockey Onlooker
06-23-2005 7:10 pm
|
Report this post
|
We have "Strategic Plans" ?
While this may be one of the first series against a superior program in quite some time
I would expect a dose of reality in reporting what happened. I would pose many more questions to the program if I were to read FHc's spin and not look at the results posted.
How many goals ( for and Against ) How many PCs ( for and against ) How many consecutive passes made ? Errors ( forced and unforced )..etc.. the list of stats go on and on.
If there were coaches at the game I am sure the obvious didn't escape them ...so.. what's the big secret ? .... Canada has not reached the pnnacle where they need to hide their grand plan... They should be honest and take the series for what is worth .. a TEST
I would seriously doubt any "foreign " scouts were there to assess Canada.
So if there were any coaches watching the game, give us your impression. The Women's team is "rebuilding" so some doses of humility and self appraisal is not such a bad thing ..but only provides self growth to the program and to their credit they have a new coach who will guide them in the next 5 years..
Thanks
|
|
Spaceman Spiff
06-26-2005 6:54 am
|
Report this post
|
problem is....
If we had any media coverage at all in the paper(outside Van) you would likely see some references to what really happened but unlike the Canucks there are not a bevy of "experts" to be found independantly reporting the results.
It is frustrating for the paying members of FHC to get these insulting reports in fact they are quite blatantly propagnada, that is fine if there is some balance by having other media covering the match. Up until now it does not appear that FHC has desired any outside commentary or appraisal of the women's team.
Hockey Onlooker: you make a good challenge let's hear the peolpe who were there comment .....but please do not use the word 'rebuilding' we have been in a constant state of reconstruction for 20 years
|
|
Miracle
06-28-2005 7:50 pm
|
Report this post
|
Can't win on talent alone
If the Canadians really want to win they need to realize that they can't win on talent alone. In order to get out of this seemingly permanent "rebuilding" phase the Canadians have two choices. One is, though highly unlikely, that they get a huge boost in funding and train year round with the same people. The second one is that the players and coaches must make huge sacrifices in order to train year round with the same people. The centralization of the Canadian program is what will bring success to this program filled with numerous gifted athletes and coaches. No team can win on talent alone. Teams need trust, reliability, and belief in eachother in order to succeed. It seems to be lacking in the Canadian program as an outside observer. There is definently no lack of passion or desire on the part of the athletes or coaches but the program needs to be centralized for longer periods of time. The athletes/coaches need to interact away from the field/training grounds. I highly recommend watching the movie "Miracle" with Kurt Russell about the 1980 U.S. Men's hockey team. I'm watching with great interest the next few strides that Canadian programme takes towards success.
|
|
|
|
 |
HOME | FEATURES | CLUBHOUSE | CAMPS | LINKS | ABOUT US | STORE | ADVERTISE
Use of this site is subject to certain Terms & Conditions.
|
|
|
