Gordon Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca I suspect that Di Tullio came on in midfield & Matondo was sent up front. It appears this was indeed the case. Everything below this point is not directed at anyone in particular, just an expression of disappointment: It sucks that a mere 17 minutes into the game we reduce our attacking strength. Matondo got good reviews attacking on the flank against Brazil so why not bring in Godfrey to play up front? In fact, If Wyn is deemed a starter, why not have him and Godfrey up front and Hume in the Midfield just behind the strikers? Why not attack, damn it? And Frankly, I think Ledgerwood's style of play would lend itself well tot his tournament as a defensive mid assuming that we have Matondo, Hume and Hutchinson (along with Godfrey and Belotte) primarily attacking and Chin and Ledgerwood playing defensively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamiltonfan Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 is canada out forsure?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian B. Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 quote:Originally posted by hamiltonfan is canada out forsure?? Yes. Unless you think Canada beating the Czech Republic is a possibility. We would then need to be in the top 4 of the third placed teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadiankick97 Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 I think the Czechs are beatable. Our boys would be playing with a bit of revenge in there attitude from the 5-1 loss from the Men's Senior Team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 Perhaps, but I think we'd still be considered the under-dogs, just as we have been for the last two matches. Not sure how much "revenge factor" there will be as none of the U20 team were invovled with the seniors for that match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca Perhaps, but I think we'd still be considered the under-dogs, just as we have been for the last two matches. Not sure how much "revenge factor" there will be as none of the U20 team were invovled with the seniors for that match. I honestly don't think we had the underdog mantle against Australia. This (Canada) was a good team that qualified ahead of the US. Now perhaps we've been a bit unlucky with Hume narrowly missing two chances that may have turned losses into draws or even, today, a win: 2 points, or heaven forbid 4 points, would be putting a different complexion on things for sure. There is no reason to consider ourselves an underdog when playing Australia at the youth level. Its a cop out in my opinion. They are a nation faced with many of the same obstacles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 I think the fact that the Aussies were calling themselves the clear favourites for this match (see the article posted on the old board), expecting to win comfortably and sounding quite confident about their ability to move to the next round while Canada was sounding hopeful for little more than a good performance would suggest otherwise. If we were favoured, rather than the Aussies, or even considered on an even keel, why weren't we acting that way? The Australian pro league may not be much, but its more than we have in Canada at the moment & its clearly developing more players who play at high levels of European club play than Canada's system is currently doing (even if we are getting better). Admittedly I am disappointed not to pick up at least a point, and will be if we don't pick up a point against the Czechs, and I think this was the match where we would be less of an underdog than the other two, but that doesn't really change the overall status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca The Australian pro league may not be much, but its more than we have in Canada at the moment & its clearly developing more players who play at high levels of European club play than Canada's system is currently doing (even if we are getting better). Looking at the MLS/Canadian League debate on these boards, MLS advocates seem to say a Canadian League will do nothing for development as the calibre will be too low. But look at the Aussie league. Its main strength is developing players and giving a great number of them their pro start before shipping off the better ones to Euro clubs. It gives them important experience and a not-so-stressful starting point. Imagine Freddy Adu going to Man U and the stress and pressure that would accompany that instead of staring his pro career in his domestic league, where he will be protected and nurtured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca I think the fact that the Aussies were calling themselves the clear favourites for this match (see the article posted on the old board), expecting to win comfortably and sounding quite confident about their ability to move to the next round...would suggest otherwise. that my friend is an essential defining characteristic of Australia. They refuse to concede defeat even after they are beaten on the field. They are always cocky, they are always confident and they always expect to win, even when they themselves are clear underdogs. They use it to great effect. I admire them for it. They will not play the "just happy to be here" card under any circumstances. quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca If we were favoured, rather than the Aussies, or even considered on an even keel, why weren't we acting that way? Exactly. Why weren't we? Our performance on the field, by all accounts, suggests at least parity. The Australian coach said that the Czechs were somewhat lucky to get the draw. Why is Mitchell saying they'll be tougher than Australia? Clearly one country is setting themselves up for defeat, and it is not the Australians. Unfortunately, outside of Hockey, that is our national character when it comes to sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Gordon Exactly. Why weren't we? Our performance on the field, by all accounts, suggests at least parity. The Australian coach said that the Czechs were somewhat lucky to get the draw. Why is Mitchell saying they'll be tougher than Australia? Clearly one country is setting themselves up for defeat, and it is not the Australians. Unfortunately, outside of Hockey, that is our national character when it comes to sports.There may be something in what what you say, but if we are saying that the Aussie coach was full of it with the "clear favourites to win" comment, then why should we be taking him seriously for the "Czechs were lucky to get the draw" comment? I'm not sure you can have it both ways. It could simply be that Mitchell is aware of the talent of all the teams (and he should be) & is being realistic with his assessment. The flip side to the argument is that you have to have a reason to be cocky & confident, and its possible that you can walk in over-confident and underestimating one's opponents & get smacked even worse in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Daniel Looking at the MLS/Canadian League debate on these boards, MLS advocates seem to say a Canadian League will do nothing for development as the calibre will be too low. It depends on what kind of league we are talking about. A league which only plays 4 months a year in connection with the US 2nd tier is better than nothing, but won't help us as much as a fully-fledged professional league would do. Unfortunately it looks like one MLS team in Canada, as doubtful as that might be, is a more realistic proposition than even a not-quite-fully-fledged all-Canadian league. Having more A-league teams will help player development, but not as much as I would like. I really hate the length of the A-league season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca The thing with the A-League is that it doesn't have a developmental mandate. A Canadian League would have one. And that might make it able to extend the season by a month or so (CIS finals are in early November and the A-League finished its playoffs by September 20th!!!). However, that brings up a whole different problem with CIS students in a Canuck league. But seeing as it pretty much isn't a factor for the Canadian A-League teams, there's surely a way to have a 6-6½ months season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca There may be something in what what you say, but if we are saying that the Aussie coach was full of it with the "clear favourites to win" comment, then why should we be taking him seriously for the "Czechs were lucky to get the draw" comment? I'm not sure you can have it both ways. It could simply be that Mitchell is aware of the talent of all the teams (and he should be) & is being realistic with his assessment. The flip side to the argument is that you have to have a reason to be cocky & confident, and its possible that you can walk in over-confident and underestimating one's opponents & get smacked even worse in the process. The pattern of the Aussies is as follows: First game (against Czech's), says Canada game is the qualifying game as Czechs got in the back door, 2nd game (Canada) says that Australia should win, third game (Brazil), yet to be played, allows that Brazil has a great record "at the youth level" but says they will be playing for a win and to take the group. He is instilling confidence and the will to win, versus, setting the stage for excuses and moral victories. Making comments after a loss to one team by saying the next team is tougher is hardly setting the mindset that a team needs to win. Canada needs to win, and Mitchell needs to be putting it the minds of the players that this is doable. I don't want it both ways Gian-Luca, what I want is for all of our coaches to be putting into the heads of our players that winning is possible. Not putting it into their heads that winning is unlikley. I hope that this team can respond the way they did in Charleston to a must win situation. And i hope that Mitchell is instilling more confidence in his team privatley than he seems to be doing publicly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Daniel Ideally, that should be the case, but that might be why an All-Canadian league unlikely to happen. We are heading off into other factors that could lead this thread going into another direction so I'll try to be brief - We have to remember that for the most part, the Canadian A-league teams (that would presumably form part of an all-Canadian league) do not want an all-Canadian league (even the CUSL proposal included a inter-twined A-league schedule to appease the teams) so its very un-likely to happen for the forseeable future. We have to have owners with deep pockets that can afford an all-Canadian league, with its extra travel costs & a longer season (& thus paying players more money over a longer period of time) for developmental purposes, and I don't know that developing talent for the Cdn. national teams is enough of a priority for them to want to do that (even if they can afford to do so - I can think of one A-league team that very likely can't). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Gordon I don't want it both ways Gian-Luca, what I want is for all of our coaches to be putting into the heads of our players that winning is possible. Not putting it into their heads that winning is unlikley. I hope that this team can respond the way they did in Charleston to a must win situation. And i hope that Mitchell is instilling more confidence in his team privatley than he seems to be doing publicly. I doubt Mitchell is saying to the players that winning isn't possible, or in the case of the Aussies was even unlikely. However, if in his opinion we would be slight to major underdogs against our respective opponents (and I think he would know better than any of us would, since we've not seen any of our opponents play) I think it would be foolish to go to the press confidently expecting & predicting a comfortable victory & thus filling our players with over-confidence. Its impossible to say without seeing these teams (or the players on a regular basis) whether Mitchell is being accurate or simply being pessimistic, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this occasion, especially since normally his comments tend to be teh former rather than the latter. And I will say this, a victory over a Czech team that could only draw against an Aussie team that we were unlucky to draw with is certainly possible. It would still likely be considered an upset if we did win, but it can be done, and hopefully Mitchell will be emphazing the latter point to the boys before Thursday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca I doubt Mitchell is saying to the players that winning isn't possible, or in the case of the Aussies was even unlikely. However, if in his opinion we would be slight to major underdogs against our respective opponents (and I think he would know better than any of us would, since we've not seen any of our opponents play) I think it would be foolish to go to the press confidently expecting & predicting a comfortable victory & thus filling our players with over-confidence. I've made the study of the psychology of winning something of a hobby sice reading Walter Tevis' book The Hustler</u>when I was 14. Mitchell has yet to publically hit any element. There is a vast difference between installing confidence and overconfidence. Is there a sport anywhere where those who are successful at it don't say that winning is 80%+ mental? I've yet to find one. The Australian coach has set about instilling confidence in his charges, Mitchell has, intentionally or otherwise, instilled doubts. He should care more about how his team performs than how he might be perceved in the media afterwards should his charges fail. The reality of who is better is largely irrelevant. It is not overconfidence to think that one can win. Overconfidence is when one thinks they can not lose. Thus, in any Brazil-Canada matchup, only the Brazilians can be overconfident. Because there is no reasonable probability that the Canadian team would think that they could not lose. The same, actually, holds true for Australia and Czechoslovakia, although I doubt that the Australian's at least, would be convinced that they could not lose. I remember going to a coaching clinic where a pyschologist asked the question of those of us attending: How many of you think that the mental aspect of your sport is the most important element of success. Every single one of us put up our hand. She then asked, how many of you devote any practice time to this. Not one hand went up. Mitchell wasn't there obvously. Being "realistic" is a cop out. Unless the Canadian team believes they can beat the Czechs, they will not. Its that simple. Mitchell should have been saying publicly that, "we should have gotten more out of this game, and the Czech's are certainly beatable", instead of, they will be tougher than the team that just beat us. I don't believe that positive statements about the ability to win, indeed, the liklihood of a win is sufficient to instill overconfidence in a Canadian Soccer team. Any Canadian Soccer team. Sorry guys, I've blathered on and probably gone way of topic. No disrespect is intended to anyone's ideas, BTW, just a statement of my own. Kindda one of my bugaboos actually. I find it all very fascinating. One day I'll bore you all with my theories on the Englsih football pysche and its relationship to the fall of the British Empire...but in another forum of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Gordon I've made the study of the psychology of winning something of a hobby sice reading Walter Tevis' book The Hustler</u>when I was 14. I can tell....... quote: The reality of who is better is largely irrelevant. ......because you made this statement. You were doing so well up until then. As a final point, Mitchell in general sounded a lot more optimistic & confident of qualifying for the tourney than qualifying out of the first round of the tourney, and I have to think that "reality" (ie. quality of the opposition) plays a large part in that, even though I agree in general with much of what you wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca I can tell....... ......because you made this statement. You were doing so well up until then. LOL! You sharp eyed little lawyer man. I suppose I should have given that statement a little context now shouldn't I have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.