Canada, coach Herdman should be worried after two uninspired games

Before this Women's World Cup started, Canadian coach John Herdman waxed lyrical about his team. It was ebullient and excitable stuff. Reading his words, it seemed there was plenty to be optimistic about. After all, many had been fearful of what awaited Canada this summer. There was a lack of stardust. There was an over-reliance on an aging Christine Sinclair. There was a lack of goals. But digesting Herdman's passionate breakdown, the doubts melted away. Here was an intelligent, well-respected man pushing a definitive message upon us, a calming, soothing, encouraging message. There was no reason for him to lie, was there?

Two games in, it's hard to know what to think anymore. The performances have been worryingly poor. Canada has scored one goal – a last-gasp penalty in their opener against China. The team has lacked verve and intensity. And the blueprint bears little or no similarity to what Herdman described just over a week ago.

He claimed Canada had a variety of strategies at the ready – a Plan A, B and C. According to Herdman, the team was ready for any eventuality. Much was made of his assertion that the three 'DNA strands' embedded in the fabric of his side had been inspired by the country's hockey team. He spoke of the attacking style, the power and the ability to exert control on the game. In 180 minutes of World Cup action, Canada has shown none of these things.

Last night, after struggling to do much against the limited but plucky New Zealand, the Canadian players slumped off the field at full-time. Their heads bowed, the frustration was clear. They were angry. Sophie Schmidt shook her head. This wasn't going to plan and everyone knew it. There was no need for niceties, no need for make-believe. There was a need for honesty and self-reflection.

But post-game, Herdman spoke of “another solid performance” by Canada. That's a complete fallacy. It's clear he refuses to criticize his players in public, preferring to get everything off his chest in the sanctity of the dressing-room. To a point, that's a noble quality, attempting to protect a group. But sometimes it gets very weary. Sometimes, there's a refreshing quality to some hard-hitting, honest assessment. Sometimes, it's the best way to get through to players and push them harder. Sometimes you can kill with kindness.

For coaches, it's a balancing act. Give with one hand, take with the other. And each individual is different. Some players are self-motivated, others require their hand to be held. Some respond to abuse, others to praise. There's a great story about Jose Mourinho in his early days at Chelsea. Entering the dressing-room after training, he walked up to a naked Frank Lampard who had just ambled out of the shower. Looking him straight in the eye, he said: “You are the best player in the world.” Lampard, so vulnerable, was unsure of how to respond. Mourinho spoke again. “You are the best player in the world but now you need to prove it and win trophies.” To many, it may have seemed a lovely moment between player and coach. To others, a veiled threat. And perhaps even Lampard was unsure as to what it was. But it motivated him and he flourished under Mourinho.

What's clear after two games is that Herdman's motivation isn't working. And perhaps what's most worrying of all is the lack of any clearly identifiable philosophy. There was a cringe-worthy press conference prior to Thursday's game where Herdman sat back and professed that Canada were a better team than New Zealand, that Canada had followed New Zealand around the world for two years scouting them, that Canada knew everything about New Zealand. And in the sober moments after the 0-0 draw, Herdman still appeared relatively satisfied. Having scouted a team for two years in anticipation of playing them in a competitive game, having talked a really good game in advance, I'd be pretty miffed if my side didn't win.

Before the tournament, Herdman spoke about his philosophy. He spoke of being more Kevin Keegan than Mourinho – an eternal romantic than cold-hearted pragmatist. He spoke of wanting his team to attack, to create chances, to entertain. Keegan's Newcastle infamously blew a 12-point lead and ended the 1995/96 Premier League season as runners-up. But at least they were entertaining. At least they had a spirit and a clear ethos and an enterprising approach. There was inevitable disappointment and heartache but the road to it was paved with a ton of goals and some thrilling offensive moments. For the fans, it was something to get behind. Something to be proud of. Most importantly, and this is crucial for Herdman and Canada, something to remember. At least, Keegan's Newcastle was the guest everyone wanted at the party.

So far, certain teams have stepped up to the plate and delivered. Yesterday, Germany and Norway served up a refreshingly good game. It was technical and competitive and thought-provoking. Both sides had a clear platform – their approaches centred on keeping the ball, building from the back, short passes and exploiting the space. Both sides had the ability to change their game. The Germans had Celia Sasic and Anja Mittag exchanging cute passes on the edge of the area and setting up chances with flicks and tricks while they could rely on Alex Popp as a physical target from crosses and set-pieces. Norway had freedom in attack – Ada Hegerberg and Isabell Herlovsen effortlessly swapping positions, giving Germany something else to think about. Above all else, there was an identity clearly on show. Both sides had a plan, a natural way of playing.

Of the more high-profile teams at this competition, the vast majority have glided through games effortlessly. Their plans have been implemented, some more successfully than others. But for England and Canada, so far it's been a jumbled mess. Sure, Mark Sampson's side have only played one game so it's hard to be too critical. But Canada should be worried.

Their issues have wider implications, of course. If the team doesn't play well, the casual soccer observers will stop caring quickly. Outside of the fact that they're still unbeaten, even the most passionate Canadian fan would find it tough to take any positives from the team's first two games. And looking ahead, you wouldn't bet on Canada making it past the round of sixteen on current form. And, should they get eliminated so early, what will that mean for the country's general interest in the remainder of the tournament?

As we approach a crucial juncture of the World Cup, there are serious questions facing Canada. And the longer they go unanswered, the more John Herdman's words seem largely irrelevant.

More Women's World Cup coverage: