Davide Xausa still injured?

[Guest Jeffery S.]

Re sources

There are things I know about the national team program past and future that I have directly from some players who were or are there. I think most on the boards can guess who I am in contact with. If I cite them directly it would be problematic for them, and I could indeed risk the degree of trust I have gained over time in our conversations. We are not really friends, just acquaintances. So I usually mix what I am told with my own opinion and speculation, and even am ready to criticize some of their positions, as I do not want to become a spokesperson for them, their puppet so to speak on this board.

I take what they say with a grain of salt, as I do with what my best friends say as well.

Let me say though that it was one still active former (and hopefully future) national team player who got in touch with me thankful for the disinterested support I had been giving him on the Voyageur board. Upon occasion I have sent the info I have learnt personally to some of the people here I mail to privately, as it was too juicy to post but too juicy not to tell someone.

[Canuck Oranje]

I have no interest in preserving Holger's sainthood nor am I about to call for his head. Personal preference has been a key selection criteria for coaches for years in Canada and elsewhere. I don't think we can underestimate the importance of personal relationships when it comes to Canada getting friendlies against Germany and Scotland.

At the same time, Canadian soccer may have improved from its past. As a teenager, I once attended a summer development camp where the head soccer instructor was an individual who later became Canada's head coach (not naming names). The only thing that I remember from that camp was being criticized in front of the whole group of campers about unshaven facial hair. Being of Dutch extraction, I wondered whether players like Gullit and Davids (if Canadian) would have ever even received an invitation (the hair not racial)to the national team later when this individual became Canada's head coach.

If you read the history of Hiddink in Korea, you also see that he had to break down the traditional preference structure before he could be successful there.

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack

Sorry, I hate to drag this on, but, I personally don't believe Canada's Men's National Team has accomplished anything (of importance) since the 2000 Gold Cup win.

1. May 27, 2000 vs. T & T. We can only muster a 1-0 win at home to a T & T B-team

2. May 30, 2000 vs. Honduras. Okay a 2-1 win was pretty good.

3. June 4/11 2000. We beat Cuba 1-0 on aggregate in WC Qual. Not even scoring at home.

4.Jul 16 to Nov 15, 2000. Canada puts together a dreadful perfomance in the Group of 4 stage of WQ qual. I thought our downfall was not being able to beat Panama on the road and losing 2-0 to T & T at home, it was too late after that.

5.April 24,26, 2001. The LG Cup. We lost 3-0 to Egypt and beat Iran 1-0, Iran is a pretty good team at least.

6.May 31-June 4, Confed Cup. We lose 3-0 to Japan and 2-0 to Cameroon and tie Brazil 0-0. Nothing spectacular here, we had a pretty full team for this tournament as well.

7.Nov. 14, 2001, A 2-1 loss to Malta.

8.2002 Gold Cup. We defeated Haiti and Korea (okay, we looked pretty good in those games. We collapsed against Ecuador near the end of the game, causing the 3-way tie for first. We then could only beat Martinique on penalties (Martinique isn't even a FIFA nation) Sure, it was nice to finish 3rd in the tournament, but I don't think it was that significant.

I'm getting tired of typing now, but, following the last gold cup, we have a record of 2-4. That includes wins over Switzerland and Libya, and loses to Scotland, U.S.A, Estonia and Germany. Personally, (this is only my opinion), I still don't think we've really accomplished anything since the 2000 Gold Cup

"It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees."

Emiliano Zapata

I agree with you partly in that the measurable results, particularly the failure to even get to the final 6 of World Cup Qualifying, are not there. Indeed, from my perspective, World Cup Qualifying is the only thing that really matters, particularly now that we have a GC under our belt. I think that once you become a threat at the hex, all other things tend to fall into place - more and better friendlies, results in regional tournaments etc.

To that end, however, I have to give Holger the benefit of the doubt - although these persistent rumours or player conflict concern me. Our team, simply, is better than it was 2 years ago. We have more depth...to the extent that guys like Rogers can't even get a game any more. We have a significant loss in goal, with the retirement of Forrest but that is probably the only position on the field where we are weaker than we were 2 years ago. How much of that should Holger get credit for? Well, definitely not all of it. Some of the guys have improved largely through their club play. But he has been giving guys like Nsaliwa, Hutchinson, and DeGuzman an opportunity to grow into the national team roles. He introduced the concept of McKenna as a Striker, something Hearts is now following, and say what you want about Kevin's technical skills - and these have improved considerably since January of last year - but he does score goals. And although it is still developing, I see Canada playing a better possession game than they did two years ago, and sticking with it even when getting beaten. This too is a positive development.

If we fail to qualify for at least the playoff spot in CONCACAF, then I am going to be calling for Holger's head, because I think we have the talent, and are developing the depth, to achieve this. I think, however, that over the past two years, Holger has been taking a reasonably intelligent approach to developing a team, and a style of play, that enhances our ability to qualify for Germany. I would like to see him reach out to Aguiar, and I would like to see some games in Canada. But overall, I am reasonably happy with the progress towards what I consider the prime objective - qualifying for the World Cup.

In a World full of caterpillars it takes balls to be a butterfly.

[Guest Ed]

Beg to differ on a couple of points.

1. Holger did not come up with the idea of playing Kevin McKenna as a striker. He had some playing time with Hearts in that position prior to the Gold Cup in Feb 2002.

2. Do you really think we are stronger in the back line than we were 2 years ago?? Can't see it myself.

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by Ed

Beg to differ on a couple of points.

1. Holger did not come up with the idea of playing Kevin McKenna as a striker. He had some playing time with Hearts in that position prior to the Gold Cup in Feb 2002.

2. Do you really think we are stronger in the back line than we were 2 years ago?? Can't see it myself.

1. I'll defer to you on that. I thought it was the other way around but expect that I am wrong on this.

2. Yes, actually I do. Assuming either a 3-5-2 or a 4-4-2. Key to this, of course, is the notion that Menezes has not suffered a significant decline in "skills and physic" as a result of his stay in China. Two years ago we were using Watson, deVos, Menezes, Fletcher, Fenwick and Hastings as our top six. deVos is better now, as is Hastings. Menezes, I am assuming to have remained static. The remaining of the top 6 would include Nsaliwa, still growing as a player, but already better than Fenwick ever was, and probably able to make up in skills for the advantage Fletcher had in experience. Throw in Klukowski, Fletcher, Mckenna, Jazic and Bent and I would say we were better and deeper. The problem is that these guys seldom play together. So I will concede that there is some projection and conjecture in saying that we are better and deeper now.

In a World full of caterpillars it takes balls to be a butterfly.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Andrew W

Alright then, who is Xausa's buddy you talked too?

As I mentioned, I don't believe mentioning specific names, but providing a general idea of where I got the info from.

The "buddy" is a former teammate of Xausa's, if you want a further general indication of where my info came from (other than the stuff which I specifically mentioned came from Holger).

Well a lot of things can happen, when you're walking down the street, and it never fails to amaze me, the people that I meet. They all say "See you later" and I just answer "How? How will you see me later, when you can't see me now?" - Kevin Ayers, The Confessions of Dr. Dream & Other Stories (1974)

[Gian-Luca]

I agree with Gordon for the most part - while the "results" since the 2000 Gold Cup haven't always been there, I do feel the nation is progressing on the field. We may have won the 2000 Gold Cup, but we looked more like a team that can actually play soccer in the Confederations Cup (for me the turning point in how we looked on the field) despite not winning a game.

Holger himself says he's an ordinary coach, nothing special. He's probably right - we're better off with him than Lenarduzzi, but the fact that the CSA could afford to hire him suggests he is not considered the #1 coaching genius of our time. The bigger question for me is how he is performing in his other role in player development (though even that must be hampered by the lack of a truly fully-fledge pro league).

Lets be realistic, any coach will have a tough time in Canada. No league & no home games in the past 3 years. Name me another national team coach (or national team) that has to put up with never having home-field advantage.

Holger didn't quite introduce the idea of McKenna as a striker, but Hearts started playing him more in that position once they noted that Canada was using him there (according to an article I read somewhere). I do believe Holger introduced the concept of Stalteri as a midfielder though.

Re: our backline, I'm not sure if it has gotten worse over the past two years, or that our goaltending is not quite where it was - or, if in fact this is a function of Canada no longer playing 9-man bunker defense's in front our keepers. Tam at right back will be a significant improvement there, but our potential on the left side & in the middle remains untapped because we have yet to see Jazic, Klukowski or Reda in those positions (for a variety of reasons).

Well a lot of things can happen, when you're walking down the street, and it never fails to amaze me, the people that I meet. They all say "See you later" and I just answer "How? How will you see me later, when you can't see me now?" - Kevin Ayers, The Confessions of Dr. Dream & Other Stories (1974)

[matthew]

I agree with the idea of keeping sources confidential. It's tough enough to nurture a relationship where people tell you information they don't want shared. But then transimitting that info in a way that doesn't compromise your source, while still being informative is even harder.

I agree a little that we were a better team in 2000. But there's no reason the current group can't be a better team than that. We'll just have to see. I would take the Watson-Menezes-Devos back three over anything we've used in the last year. I think Holger has done many things right, but the lack of accountability for certain players, while other players could do nothing right to earn a selection his most maddening trait.

Results are good to look at, but you can't really overstate the importance of looking at the actual game. We played much better in the 2-0 loss at home to T&T in WCQ than we did in the 1-0 win in the GC semifinal. Craig Forrest, a bad refereeing decision and a T&T forward playing four Canadians onside was the difference between the results.

As bad as our results were in WCQ I thought we played better in a lot of those games than we have recently. I know decent play if you can't score is useless, but I worry about our relative lack of progress in the last two years. Hopefully the Gold Cup will be a big step forward.

cheers,

matthew

The secret of life is to find moments of levity and grace in what is, ultimately, a tragedy. Watching Canadian soccer is good practice for this.

[Jason]

Regarding keeping some sources anonymous, I think it is necessary. I've been told a few things that were "off the record" and if I would have mentioned them, not only would I have completely lost my contact, but I actually could have affected his position and caused a controversy. The info eventually gets out there, in some form or another. I think good journalists can present the info in such a way that it gets out there and still protects the source. For an amateur like myself, I try my best, but I'd personally err on the side of caution. I don't do this for a living, but what I write could affect some people's jobs.

Jason